21 Apr 06
Originally posted by powershakerI don't think the average layman ponders chess ratings and percentages.
I'm not saying in the chess world. I'm saying in the entire world. If one considers the game, what rating begins to be considered "good" by the average layman who ponders the ratings and the percentages?
21 Apr 06
Originally posted by powershakerWhatever my rating is.
When is a player considered good? I'm not saying in the chess world. I'm saying in the entire world. If one considers the game, what rating begins to be considered "good" by the average layman who ponders the ratings and the percentages? Just wanted to know people's opinion.
21 Apr 06
Originally posted by wormwoodYou guys are to much into chess!
in finland 1800 gets you only in the top 23.6%
can it really be true that on uscf 1800 gets you into top 12%? even with uscf ratings being around 100 pts higher than fide or finnish national rating??
what about other countries?
Originally posted by RahimK
Somethings strange about how they added up the numbers.
Regular ratings go to class a 1800-1899
non scholastic 2685 memebers 85.66%
(See 15% is 1800+, that proves my point, anyways)
scholastic 19 memebers 99.9%
And somehow you added them up 2704 all memeber for that row and 92%?
How did they get that!!!!???
I have no idea how they added that up, but 1800 = 85.66%
It should be that.
So from those 3 numbers for the best players using ratings it would be
Finland, canada, Us.
21 Apr 06
Originally posted by General PutzerOdd thing about that chart, 50th percentile, which I would consider average is only around 1000 or so. I don't think that works out that low here. Or is it? Anyone done a statistical workup here? My rating here is usually hanging out in the high 1500's but in the USCF thats almost at the 80% tile level. I thought 1500 was more like an average rating.
Here's a rating distribution chart, giving percentile ranking in the USCF.
http://www.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.html
21 Apr 06
Originally posted by RahimKI think you're looking at non-scholastic 1800-1899, when you should be looking at 1799 all members to get the correct percentage for 1800 even. which is 88.08%
So from those 3 numbers for the best players using ratings it would be
Finland, canada, Us.
I don't think it can be that simple comparison though. maybe it's a structural difference, ie. uscf having lots of young kids in the scholastic chess? we don't have anything like that. just old geezers hacking away. and jusu, the young geezer. 🙂
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
21 Apr 06
Originally posted by Draxusi find your reply to pretty lame as your response conveys that good is indeed relative. in absolute terms, 1200 is a really low rating; one could achieve such levels with miminal effort and little time.
That's a weak reply. It is pretty easy to give an answer, you know, since it is relative and all, you could give you opinion.
I hover around 1200, but I am considered "good" compared to all of my friends who only play here and there. Of course, I am not very good at all when pitted against a real chess player 🙂
21 Apr 06
Originally posted by wormwoodYes you are right but the way its added up makes no sense at all!!
I think you're looking at non-scholastic 1800-1899, when you should be looking at 1799 all members to get the correct percentage for 1800 even. which is 88.08%
I don't think it can be that simple comparison though. maybe it's a structural difference, ie. uscf having lots of young kids in the scholastic chess? we don't have anything like that. just old geezers hacking away. and jusu, the young geezer. 🙂
3400 some non sholastic players = 79%
33 scholastic palyers = 9_%?
and you get 88%. What kind of math is that. It seems like the averaged 79% and 9_% or something which is completely wrong.
It has to be weighted average so really the scholastic players can be neglected because 3400>>33.
22 Apr 06
Originally posted by wormwoodhttp://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/bcftable.html
in finland 1800 gets you only in the top 23.6%
can it really be true that on uscf 1800 gets you into top 12%? even with uscf ratings being around 100 pts higher than fide or finnish national rating??
what about other countries?
Gives a comparison of BCF, USCF and FIDE ratings, and also provides an answer for when you can consider yourself good (BCF 200 ~ 2250 FIDE). So most of us have a fair way to go yet...
22 Apr 06
Originally posted by DeepThoughthttp://www.chess.ca/CFCvsFIDE.htm
http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/bcftable.html
Gives a comparison of BCF, USCF and FIDE ratings, and also provides an answer for when you can consider yourself good (BCF 200 ~ 2250 FIDE). So most of us have a fair way to go yet...