23 Jan 07
Originally posted by JusuhI hate to waste my time replying to a troll, but I've nothing to do at work here...
Computers: (~)2800
Elite human: 2700
Excellent: 2400
Good: 2100
Potentially good: 1800
Average: 1600
.
.
.
Mild retards: 1200
Severe retards: 1100
Machine programmed to make random moves: 1000
RHP users on average: 900
oh and sorry for using my own, more precise, scale...
By definition 'average' will land you squarely in our within a small range around the 50th percentile of players. 1600 under all the systems I'm familiar with RHP, USCF, FICS is considerably better than that. Therefore, your system is flawed.
23 Jan 07
Originally posted by zebanoAs an "average" player, I'm in the top 25% in the USCF, and the top 10-15% on every correspondence site I use regularly.
I hate to waste my time replying to a troll, but I've nothing to do at work here...
By definition 'average' will land you squarely in our within a small range around the 50th percentile of players. 1600 under all the systems I'm familiar with RHP, USCF, FICS is considerably better than that. Therefore, your system is flawed.
😕
23 Jan 07
Originally posted by zebanoNot to mention that the subset of "rated players" is already a group that's better at chess than the population at large. 1600 is considerably better than average among people who are rated, and to most people who don't take chess seriously, a 1600 player is an unstoppable chess god (and who am I to correct them?). 🙂
By definition 'average' will land you squarely in our within a small range around the 50th percentile of players. 1600 under all the systems I'm familiar with RHP, USCF, FICS is considerably better than that. Therefore, your system is flawed.
23 Jan 07
Originally posted by OrangeKingYet, those of us near 1600 are very nearly incompetent with respect to our positional understanding, to say nothing of our tendency to commit elementary tactical errors.
Not to mention that the subset of "rated players" is already a group that's better at chess than the population at large. 1600 is considerably better than average among people who are rated, and to most people who don't take chess seriously, a 1600 player is an unstoppable chess god (and who am I to correct them?). 🙂
23 Jan 07
2 edits
I like my own classifications of ratings. What do you think other that baa. 😀
3000 -up Royal Grandmaster
2800 2999 Senior Grandmaster
2600 2799 Grandmaster
2400 2599 Senior master
2200 2399 Master
2000 2199 Expert
1800 1999 Class A
1600 1799 Class B
1400 1599 Class C
1200 1399 Class D
1000 1199 Class E
800 999 Class F
600 799 Class G
400 599 Class H
200 399 Class I
0 199 Class J
23 Jan 07
Originally posted by ArmagodenI must say you didn't leave anyone out 😲 😀 😲 !!!
I like my own classifications of ratings. What do you think other that baa. 😀
3000 -up Royal Grandmaster
2800 2999 Senior Grandmaster
2600 2799 Grandmaster
2400 2599 Senior master
2200 2399 Master
2000 2199 Expert
1800 1999 Class A
1600 1799 Class B
1400 1599 Class C
1200 1399 Class D
1000 1199 Class E
800 999 Class F
600 799 Class G
400 599 Class H
200 399 Class I
0 199 Class J
23 Jan 07
Originally posted by JusuhMild retards!!!! 😀😀😀😀😲
Computers: (~)2800
Elite human: 2700
Excellent: 2400
Good: 2100
Potentially good: 1800
Average: 1600
.
.
.
Mild retards: 1200
Severe retards: 1100
Machine programmed to make random moves: 1000
RHP users on average: 900
oh and sorry for using my own, more precise, scale...
23 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by zebanoI tend to disagree with this assertion. Despite the fact that it is competition between two players, chess cannot be looked at as simply a comparison of skill between players (that would imply that if the top 5% of chess players all quit chess it would make you a better player). There is a theoretical best move and this is the standard with which chess skill should be measured (and even though we haven't solved chess a computer like Hydra is a pretty good appoximation). Think about it this way, if we asked Kasparov what rating he would consider "good" I can pretty much assure you he wouldn't include anyone outside of the top 1% of all chess players.
By definition 'average' will land you squarely in our within a small range around the 50th percentile of players. 1600 under all the systems I'm familiar with RHP, USCF, FICS is considerably better than that. Therefore, your system is flawed.
23 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Ramiri15It is not an assertion. It is the definition of the word average.
I tend to disagree with this assertion. Despite the fact that it is competition between two players, chess cannot be looked at as simply a comparison of skill between players (that would imply that if the top 5% of chess players all quit chess it would make you a better player). There is a theoretical best move and this is the standard with which chess sk retty much assure you he wouldn't include anyone outside of the top 1% of all chess players.
Edit: I'm begining to empathize with XanthosNZ
23 Jan 07
Originally posted by zebanoNo it's only one definition of the word average, and with relation to chess skill I don't think it's the correct one to use. For example, we run into problems when we compare the 'statistical average' player of today to his 1900 counterpart. Also, as OrangeKing pointed out, the 'average' chess player including all people who play chess would lose consistently to even the 'average' rated player. So who's the real average?
It is not an assertion. It is the [b]definition of the word average.
Edit: I'm begining to empathize with XanthosNZ[/b]
For chess skill, a better definition of average is "lacking exceptional quality or ability," or "lacking special distinction, rank, or status." Chess skill, like I said before, is not simply a comparison between players, it is the ability to find the theoretical best move. Thus being a bad, good, or an average chess player is much more subjective. Personally I consider 1600 about average, 1800 good, and 2000 very good. I'm sure other people have different systems. That's all.
