Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI think the classifications below those ratings are too optimistic. It's hard to imagine a 400 rated "beginner" other than children of very young age.
National Class D - USCF (1200-1399)
Strong Social Player
National Class E - USCF (1000-1199)
Social Player
National Class F - USCF (800-999)
Novice Player
National Class G - USCF (600-799)
Beginner II/Scholastic Player
National Class H - USCF (400-599)
Beginner I/Scholastic Player
National Class I - USCF (200-399)
Early ...[text shortened]... 99)
Minimum Rating Class
Taken from:
http://www.chess.jpkoonce.net/RatingClasses.html
I'm hoping to get a decent 1600 rating when my current 6 games are over, and I really cannot think of myself as a "strong tournament player." I believe I could call myself "a strong chess player" only after I reach (and stabilize at) 1800.
Originally posted by Dragon FireAh, so you must live in Lake Wobegon. 😉
I would say that everyone in our club is at least class C in this list.
I am not sure I have ever met a chess player class D or lower and it seems almost inconceivable that someone could be class G,H,I or J except if they have just learnt the rules.
I'm USCF Class D (just barely), and I was Class E not too long ago. (I've only been playing chess a few years, and I'm not a fanatic about studying.) Although I'm near the bottom of the ratings for the club I'm in, there are maybe a dozen or so that have ratings below mine, and a few are even under 1000.
According to Mark Glickman, the mean rating for established USCF players in July 1994 was 1490. I'd guess that that number hasn't changed much since then. I don't know, maybe the USA has more casual chess players than the UK has.
In my experience, levels of chess skill definitely extend downwards towards 100 and below. It's most evident in young children, who move with delightfully cheerful obliviousness. At some point on this scale, play ability is compromised by 1) unfamiliarity with how the pieces move and 2) being distracted and leaving a game unfinished.
For a strong player, it's an interesting challenge to induce a player like this into checkmating you as quickly as you can. I've done this with young relatives and it's not so easy. They rarely notice an available mate in one, even one left open move after move. You have to capture pieces and pawns not involved in checkmating, and manuever pieces to attract attention towards checkmating moves. You'll see things like 1.Qg6+ Kh8 2.Qg7+ forcing Kxg7.
Aside from the kids, I've seen several adult players at the ~400-500 level. These folks aren't dumb, they just don't yet know the "language" of chess. Everyone is equally dumb if the IQ test is administered in an unfamiliar language. Typically, these players are struggling to identify legal moves, let alone more advanced concepts like whether pieces are currently under attack.
Originally posted by DawgHausI guess (don't know really) to be at 400, you'd have to give away more than 2, or maybe even 3 pieces a game to one move captures. I think if we're talking about an adult here, it would be fair to say even if they aren't dumb or stupid, they should have some kind of concentration or ego problem (when I was a complete beginner, I used to lose to 1200 rated personalities on Chessmaster, have my ego bruised, say to myself 'I can't really be this stupid', get angry and agitated, start the next immediately and then play even worse. with time I learned how deep the game actually was and gathered my patience. I believe this was in normal limits, because I got my phsychological lesson in a short amount of time. to drop down to 400 because of this would indicate some kind of problem.)
In my experience, levels of chess skill definitely extend downwards towards 100 and below. It's most evident in young children, who move with delightfully cheerful obliviousness. At some point on this scale, play ability is compromised by 1) unfamiliarity with how the pieces move and 2) being distracted and leaving a game unfinished.
For a strong playe oves, let alone more advanced concepts like whether pieces are currently under attack.
and I think the comparison about language isn't very accurate, because actually IQ test do ask questions in a different language, which are made of patterns and lines. just like chess. (but this doesn't mean I'm claim that there's any relation between low rated chess players and their intelligence. I agree with you on that point.)
I'm just trying to make a discussion by the way, not neccessarily opposing to you.
Originally posted by Mad RookIs there room for me in Lake Woebegon? Please
Ah, so you must live in Lake Wobegon. 😉
According to Mark Glickman, the mean rating for established USCF players in July 1994 was 1490. I'd guess that that number hasn't changed much since then. I don't know, maybe the USA has more casual chess players than the UK has.
Who cares about average. A decent rating is 1550-1600. They know how to play a decent opening and somewhat know how to go about the middle game.
1800 is a respectable rating and I would say they are very good players. They know endgames well, tactics well and openings well. They may make mistakes but those mistakes are very small.
I think of anyone less than 1550 as beginner player.
Originally posted by kmac27Terms like "decent" and "respectable" are subjective terms, subject to different connotations depending on your vantage point. (Fischer considered pretty much anyone below strong GM level as "fish".) I'm not sure who really cares about "average", but at least there are fairly accepted methods of defining that term. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I wonder about an opinion that labels roughly one-half of all established USCF players as beginners.
Who cares about average. A decent rating is 1550-1600. They know how to play a decent opening and somewhat know how to go about the middle game.
1800 is a respectable rating and I would say they are very good players. They know endgames well, tactics well and openings well. They may make mistakes but those mistakes are very small.
I think of anyone less than 1550 as beginner player.
Originally posted by kmac27I don't. in fact, I'm a complete beginner with endgames. I know the basic mats (KNB etc.) and atomic pawn endgames. give me anything harder and I'll have to wing it.
1800 is a respectable rating and I would say they are very good players. They know endgames well...
tactics? yes, I'm relatively good at them. but still light-years from mastering them. there's so much ground to cover it's not even funny.
openings? err... a beginner at best. I'm sure there are 1200-players who know my openings way better than I do. but I'm working on that.