13191 játékos online!
Ember a gép ellen - sok sikert!
Levelező sakk bármikor!
Szavazz a nyerő lépésre!
Képes vagy rá?
Élesítsd taktikai érzéked!
Jótanácsok, meglátások, vélemények
Tanulj a legjobbaktól, tanulj profiktól!
Nézz milliónyi mesterjátszmát!
A virtuális sakk edző!
Teszteld tudásod a gép ellen!
Találd meg a megfelelő edzőt!
Minden nap meg tudod oldani?
Hogy a részek egésszé váljanak!
Kezdők, induljatok innen!
Barátkozz és játssz csapatban!
A sakkvilág hírei.
Keress a Chess.com tagok között!
Keress helyi klubokat és eseményeket!
Ki a legjobb barátod?
Tudd meg, miről beszélnek a többiek!
^ think he means sand bagging like how a 1500 cna stop playing for years getting to a 2000 stregth or higher and then dominate the tournament scene
I don't know about plateaus, but I am still trying to figure out how my blitz rating apparently starts at 1200, and I have a pretty decent 42-28-3 record, yet my rating has dropped to 1135? ;)
My "standard" rating of 1400 is closer to my old USCF rating.
Also, ratings seem to be relative. In the boonies, they mean less, for example. I am a 1400-ish player but I have played at a 1750 level in one tournament in Athens, Greece, and I have a winning record versus a 1900 player in Wyoming in the handful of games we played.
I have a pretty decent 42-28-3 record, yet my rating has dropped to 1135? ;)
Avg. Opp.: 1047
That may explain something...
When I first started playing chess I was stuck at that 800-900 range for well over a year. Then some of the intermediate tactics started to stick & I quickly shot up a over 1000 in a short period. Then only a few months later I reached the elusive 1200 mark and have been there for about 5 years (though sometimes I don't play for long periods, like entire years after I "quit"). These ratings are not official, but I have pretty much the same rating on chessmaster 10, 11, grandmaster edition, & here on chess.com. And when I used to play on yahoo I was rated around 1200. That seems to be my ceiling.
I have also noticed that on chessmaster I can win or draw any opponent under 1300 and only lose if I am really not focusing. But, I have never had a victory against any of the 'personalities' over 1300, either losses or draws [(mostly losses) but I did get a draw once agains a personality rated over 2000 (game was only 23 moves and it forced the draw on me via 3 fold)].
As I understand these ratings are benchmarks. I could be wrong...
below 800 you know the moves and the rules.
800 - 1200 beginner
1200 - 1600 intermediate
1600 - 1800 expert
1800 - 2000 strong expert/master
2000+ - Master/IM/GM
But do study chess like endgames, strategy and tactics?
That's who I am getting matched up with. Not like I chose to play the 800 rated players...
I guess you already know it, you can set a rating range of opponents here.
Oh, of course not. It's not like there's an option to choose the level of people you play with.
If one is playing in blitz tournaments, how does one avoid the 800-ish players in the sub-1200 tourneys?
You are right, though, I don't use a rating filter/option even outside tourneys. It seems elitist, somehow. I just play the people I am presented with and I don't cherry-pick opponents to nurse my rating. I am starting to gather reading the forums that the rating system as it sits fosters players that coddle their ratings.
Maybe you can help me with that...I notice that you recently gained 30 rating points by beating the same player 9 times in a row...nicely done.
Stop playing in them in the first place because it obviously did not help you improve your chess.
You can do whatever you want but that is just my advice.
I am sorry for being a smartass; my ass is just naturally bright.
Above 2000 you are spot on. But I would not use the word "Beginner" the way several posters have. Below 2000 it's more like:
100 - 200-ish Beginner. Just learning the rules. The lowest possible USCF rating is 100. If someone enters their first tournament, loses all of their games, their initial rating comes out something like 101, 102, 103, 104. I would have to research why it is not exactly 100, but the 1, 2, 3, etc may essentially be a code for how many games they played. It doesn't much matter anyway since the rating changes dramatically once they win a couple of games.
200+ - 999 Novice. My term, I'm simplifying a bit. The USCF has official designations Beginner, Beginner I, Beginner II, Novice, etc. but I can tell you that no one goes around saying "Oh you're a Beginner I? I'm a Beginner II." But it's useful to have some term different from Beginner (learning the rules) with a different functional meaning. Novices have moved beyond learning the rules, they have some understanding of opening and endgame principles (well, if they've been taught) but mostly they're at various stages of tactical experience and alertness, which is the primary thing that distinguishes them. A 900-player can easily give queen odds to a 300-rated player. They just take their opponent's hanging pieces, promote a pawn and mate them with queen and rook.
1000-1399 USCF Class D and E - ("Category 4 and 5") Low end Club Players, i.e. serious enough to buy a few books, spend time studying and attend a chess club fairly regularly. Some "Social Players" (never played in a tournament but have casual experience playing against rated players) are often in the 800 - 1200 strength range. But above 1200 strength is a pretty serious player even if they haven't gotten into organized tournaments.
1400-1599 USCF Class C ("Category 3") - Average Club Player. Don't misunderstand "average." This is someone who can kick the butts of 99% of all people who claim that they can play chess.
1600-1799 USCF Class B ("Category 2") - Advanced Club Player. They do chess better than practically anything with the possible exception of their job.
1800-1999 USCF Class A ("Category 1") - The highest amateur category, meaning that if your rating is 2000 or higher you are ineligible to compete in the US Amateur Championship (not to be confused with the fun but monstrously-labeled US Amateur TEAM Championship, which allows the top boards to be loaded up by professionals as long as they are balanced by a little kid to bring the team average down). Before anyone says it, I'm well aware that World Champion Max Euwe and the great Paul Morphy considered themselves amateurs ... because Euwe had a full-time job as a mathematics professor, Morphy was wealthy and had a law degree, and way back when it was considered uncouth in some circles to admit that you earned a living playing games.
2000+ Expert/Candidate Master, National Master, Senior Master (an old USCF term for 2400+ which was useful when it was harder to travel to FIDE-rated tournaments to get IM and GM titles).
Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?
(Phelon) néhány perc ezelőtt
Tracking albeit censored
(macer75) néhány perc ezelőtt
Cheap Wal-Mart Paperback Tactics
(orangeishblue) néhány perc ezelőtt
Queen or Two Rooks
(AndyClifton) néhány perc ezelőtt
(ajmeroski) néhány perc ezelőtt
Does Magnus carlsen have talent?
(Dodger111) 3 perc ezelőtt
How far should you expect to get after about a year of studying/playing chess?
(Yaroslavl) 4 perc ezelőtt
The Scheveningen Sicilian
(FromMuToYou) 5 perc ezelőtt
Small December Simul - Free but limited!
(Kinnmark) 6 perc ezelőtt
12/7/2013 - 1001 Brilliant ways to Checkmate by Reinfeld, #404
(supersoccerboy1) 8 perc ezelőtt
Miért érdemes csatlakozni | Sakk témák |
Segítség és támogatás |
Felhasználási feltételek |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Sakk - Magyar
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!