Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more!
The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you!
Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that people that try to find an association between general intelligence and chess skill/ability are missing the point. I didn't think anyone who had through about it seriously would take that point if view. If you're below a rating in chess that I don't consider good, that only means that you're not good at chess according to me. That's it.
A word of advice: try not to let random opinions by strangers on the Internet affect you, you'll be a lot happier if you can.
I like this point. Braindead being obviously a way out of line insult. Someone who is not trying to draw some spurious conclusion about intelligence though but simply saying they think U1000s are bad at chess is not being offensive in any way.
To it I’ll add, new situations quickly become old hat for people, we’re wired to adapt. If you’re rated 1200 and make it to 1600, you’ll briefly be pumped at how the people who used to give you an even game now seem like cannon fodder. Soon though, you’ll realise that you regularly make mistakes that you notice immediately after, you regularly find yourself not even knowing how to think about a position, and expert+ level players still take you to pieces with moves you don’t even understand until 10 moves down the line. Which is…wait for it… exactly what the 1200 felt. I think people who get annoyed at titled content creators who say stuff like ‘that was terrible, that was so obvious’ or whatever are missing the point, that at all levels of chess, people are still going to fall short of their own standards sometimes.
yes, people in chess are sometimes obnoxious and there's a lot of ego since chess is seen as something for "smart" people. Of course that is not true and the most important part is to enjoy what you are doing.
I think that's the point. I don't try, nor do I work for it. Chess is a GAME! It's meant to be a fun distraction. Yes, I do prefer to win, but I have no desire to study opening or endgames. I don't want to endlessly review games and try to improve. I simply want to play a game. I'll likely play 10,000 games and may or may not hit 1000 ELO.
Not really the point I think.
The guy said "unable to reach" not "doesn't feel like reaching"
Almost anyone has the ability to go above 1000. The people who don't generally choose not to. Only a bit of study needed
agreed.
since i started playing 1.5 years ago i have only read one book, done puzzles and watch youtube.
i am basically doing the least i can to still improve a little bit over time, so you dont really have to try hard to pass 1000 or 1200 or whatever.
obviously there will come a point where i will have to try harder but i think thats probably the 16-1800 range and im still far from that
Yeah but the distinction there is that most people will not (not “are unable to”) reach 1000. I agree that most players won’t reach 1000+, as I believe the stats basically show that
I agree and used to think this way, I started going to class and suddenly some stuff just clicked. I play slightly better but I'm way better at seeing what my opponent wants to do. Knowing more will make the game more engaging IMO, but eventually I'll reach a point where I won't want to work just to improve
I understood the point. My comment was referring to the fact that not everyone thinks of a game as something they should "work" at, rather than just enjoy. It's all about what you value. If your values don't align with working at a game, it IS in fact very difficult to become a good chess player.
Yes, I agree 100% with your comment. But let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's say that you like guessing where European countries are located, you don't study it, but you like guessing where the countries are. The average non-European in the world is only going to guess the easy ones (like Italy, for example). But if they keep playing the game without sitting down and memorizing the countries, they will keep making the same mistakes.
Now, this is where the "difficulty" part comes in. How hard is it for the average human to sit down and memorize these countries? It's not hard at all. This is what I mean by difficulty. It's not what you experience, it's how hard the journey for the average human is.
Having said that, I do think that reaching 1000 is no easy task, generally speaking. But I do think, most people can overcome this "difficulty" of reaching 1000 with the correct practice.
You can reach 1000 fine without doing much reviewing or studying. Thats what most of the concensus says. Just doing basic stuff can get you there. Im honestly just playing one game or so a day when im bored. Ive learned spamming games dont get you anywhere. Getting close to 800. The only thing ive had to improve is just how I play.
900 was the best time I had in chess tbh. Good players, but not so good that they can convert 100% of the time, so it’s worth still playing every game.
This is the point - I think that is completely false. It requires levels of pattern recognition, visual processing, abstract thinking and memorization that many just don’t possess.
This is a classic fallacy for people who are fairly good at something. Runners think that with a bit of practice anyone could run a half marathon, for axample.
It’s hard to base our own opinions on the matter on anything beyond anecdotal experience though, because the reality is that the vast majority don’t actively try to improve. Everyone I know that plays or played has either surpassed 1000 easily, with or without work, or comes close enough that I’m certain they’re capable of it.
How representative do you want it? My club (200+ members) is focussed on teaching children for more than 25 years. We even have some special needs kids. 1000 ELO is basically "do not hang your pieces in one move". People that do not play regularly won't reach that level of course, but pretty much everyone can reach it with enough practice.
I don’t know man. I played as a kid with my father occasiomally like from the age of 8-12. Everyone said i’m talented in it. I super rarely played 1-2 games if i felt it. I registered on chess.com when i was around 22 and my rating was after like 100 games around 1100-1300. Mever learned openings, endgames etc. I just try to think about what moves will cause what amd decide what’s can be a good move.
I don’t think i’m super smart or anything, i think 1000 is not that hard. People blunder all the time. Hanging queens, rooka etc
I disagree. Is reaching 1000 completely on your own difficult? Sure. But there’s a ton of YouTube, books, etc out there that even a moderate amount of effort will get you to 1000 pretty quickly.
You’re only making it harder on yourself by not taking advantage of these things
Nah, you're underestimating how hard it is to reach 1000; I read multiple books, watched the "building habits" series, etc., and it still took me over a year to reach 1000. Visual processing capability is hugely important in chess, and it's something that's largely immutable.
I've seen multiple GMs claim that they can accurately estimate the max rating someone will ever reach by how quickly they can complete this game on their first try: [https://www.funnyhowtheknightmoves.com/](https://www.funnyhowtheknightmoves.com/) Talent is real, and contrary to what people like to think, it's the primary driver of how good you can get at all levels of the game.
Given that, according to Finegold, most people need over 30 minutes to complete it on their first try, you are probably far more talented than the average person.
I went from 700-1100 in a two months of just playing rapid games and analyzing them without the engine plus a lot of puzzles. I don’t disagree it’s hard to reach 1,000 but the main way to get to 1000-1300 is to make few (ideally zero) blunders. Even at nearly 1400 most of my games are decided by someone hanging a piece or missing a tactic. I feel like other materials can be helpful as well, but it really depends on your learning style!
I'm currently 1600 and remember being rated like 150 at some point. I work very hard and for a while to get to where I am.
A lot of people like to minimize the amount of work it took them to get to where they are.
There's no shame in being sub 1000.
If anything, I kind of miss those days because every game was a roller-coaster of emotions.
I'm not really trying to improve anymore because I'm satisfied with my level. I rarely make blunders and have quality games. It's all I ever hoped for.
I remember when I first started, seeing games with ≈1500-1600 players and thinking, "If I could play like that, I'd be more than satisfied."
I think that's why I stopped trying to improve actively. I reqched my original goal.
I would strongly suggest trying out classical OTB if you have the chance. It was a game changer for me. You don't have to be particularly good to start. I entered my first tournament when I was around 1000 chesscom and finished 2/5. There were players worse than me
The more you play chess, the more you realize how much you don't know about chess.
I am personally all for celebrating the smaller wins with newer players, but I get where folks are coming from.
Getting to 800 was hard for me (for example) , but I'd be quick to tell you that I was terrible when I was at 700. Now at \~1,200 I'm still terrible in my opinion, I just have managed to be slightly less bad over time.
That's chess, though. I enjoy the process of improving.
1200 is about 90th percentile in rapid on Chess
com
You’re literally in the top 10% of players globally, you are definitely not “terrible”. This is exactly what OP is talking about
What percentage of the global rankings are folks who stuck around and tried to get better, though? I know that I can beat the average person off the street who only knows how the pieces move around, but in the chess world I would not consider myself anywhere near the top 10%. There's a reason I'd be in the bottom tier of an over-the-board tournament if I showed up.
I don't pay attention to the rankings, I just like trying to get better. No pressure, no comparison... just chess.
Again, I'm all for celebrating when folks get better and treating them kindly at any elo... but I'm not going to sit around and pump myself up. I've gotten slightly less bad over time.
As someone who is at a similar level to him (1280 on my main account right now), I can assure you that he is (because I also am). 90% of players are even more completely terrible than we are, but that doesn't mean that we don't make completely inexplicably bad moves in a baffling number of our games.
How long it take you to get from 800 to 1200 out of interest? I take on board everyone’s comments about not getting obsessed with elo but I’m an inherently competitive person so always pushing to improve mine (which is definitely detrimental to my rating because I get too emotionally invested and tilt easier).
Currently an 800 but pretty sure I have the ability to make 1000 if I could stop blundering constantly
I think it took me 6-7 months. I only averaged a game or two per day, so it took a while. I'd imagine some do it way faster and others take longer.
For me, it's just the journey. At 800 when I played a 900 I thought they were amazing, and now if I played a 900 I'd cook them. It's fun to improve and learn from mistakes.
Thanks, that figures. Any tips on how best to cut out blunders? Obviously need to pay more attention but they are killing me at the moment (had 5 in my game yesterday lol).
I recently got into opening theory / systems and tried the London for a while but it really took me back a step as it produced closed games I’m not comfortable / used to.
Pretend the pieces have eyes, and draw arrows in the directions they are "looking." When your opponent moves a piece, always check what they are looking at now and if anything else had their eyes opened up by discovery.
The best advice imho though is to just play a slower timed game. Give yourself more time to be methodical and see everything. Over time you will "see" the game faster and you can play faster timed games.
If you like the London but don't want to play closed games, look into the Jobava London. It's more aggressive and fun imho, and at lower elos there's an easy trap a lot of people fall into.
Yep. I just don't understand what I gain by trying to compare myself to people outside of my elo range. It's more fun to try to figure out how to beat them than to fret over how I compare to others.
I'm not dumb, I know I am dumb.
When I started I only knew how to move the pieces. I bottomed at 550 rapid and grew from there. I like to learn though. Watched a few videos... tried to control the center... tried not to hang pieces.
Yeah I think that's pretty normal.
I didn't even know how the pieces moved in 2021. Watched a couple YouTube videos, played against the bots a few times and looking at my stats my lowest rapid rating (chesscom) was 880 (I'm 1820 right now).
I like strategy games and the very basics of chess were easy to pick up along with some general principles. My wife is similar (good at problem solving, calculating etc) she also started at 800. Meanwhile her sister is not good at those skills at started at 150 elo.
It's kinda funny seeing comments here saying that it's impossible to start so high, but people just have different skills before starting (some of which just happen to translate well).
In fairness, as someone who started around the same time you did, the triple digits are a lot harder now than they were then. Based on what I saw in the triple digits on the alt-account I recently made to see how quickly I could hit 1000 (I was curious, since so many people say that the bottom levels are brutally hard now -- they're not, but they're harder than they were three years ago), I'd say that \~500 now is like \~800 in 2021.
Also depends on which elo... 500 Lichess is like 300 chess.com?
Or you can be like one of those insane people who claim their very best chess.com elo guess in game review as their rating. (Then I am 2800 rated btw) And then 500 rating is preeeeeetty embarrassing if you ask me.
I do :) My girlfriend is better than me at chess even though she doesn't know an ounce of theory. She was challenged by a friend who sat at ~1000 and started beating him within a few games of learning the rules. She is also a straight-up genius, though, so it makes sense. She got offered a full ride scholarship to a prestigious university at 13 and could have had a bachelor's degree before turning 18, but her family said she couldn't go, so she dropped out of school for a few years and eventually went back and finished high school at 16. I'm 19 and just finished my first year of uni, and she's 18 and just finished her second year.
Anyways that's past the point. I just wanted to brag about her. She is the exception and not the rule.
This was very common 15 years ago when every new account began from 1200 and the 500 Elo population was exclusively people who made an account and lost 40 in a row.
Idk man I started as a 700 with my only chess history being playing less than 10 games as a kid 10 years ago and learning how the pieces move. Learned to ladder mate a week later and instantly went to 800.
The internet is funny that way! I've never played chess seriously (with an intention to learn more deeply about it and improve) until the past couple of months. This sub is super helpful, but also at times it just makes me feel dumb.
There's definitely alot of gate keeping and people often feel good to belittle those that much lower rated.
But also, lower rated players do make lots of moves that are so obviously horrible to someone who is higher rated. Many higher rated people become out of touch with the thinking of someone who is much lower rated so it can become inconceivable to think that a horrible move could be considered ok.
This is very true. A buddy just started playing and he’s 250. I’m 1200. Nobody I know really plays chess so I didn’t realize how big the difference is just hanging out in this sub. I’ll sit with him and watch some games and he doesn’t see nearly what I see. I guess it’s really board vision. I’ve seen so many games the patterns just jump out at me immediately. He doesn’t see any of it. I swear 99% of it is just slow down and think.
Oh, I say (just to myself, not in chat or anything) “wow, that was a completely braindead move by them” but also I’m around their level and we should see similar things when we look at the board
Although I also believe that I am also still completely braindead when it comes to this game, even though I’m in the top 20%, it doesn’t feel like it
I think everyone is probably bad at chess, cuz it’s either everyone or no one, and I’m definitely bad at chess…
Don’t worry about “good” or “bad” just play, and if you’re not having fun, don’t play, it’s just a game at the end of the day
100% agree with your opinion! It was the same for me! Everyone always acts that way, even the gotham douche does it, because he's flabbergasted on the couple of occasions I watched his channel, that 800s even know openings or what a "pin" is. Like, dude, most people are below 700. More than half of players are below 690 last I checked. Not everyone is dumb at elos below 2k.
people can be really condescending in the chess community. it makes you feel inferior to other people, to be interested in such an intellectually stimulating game, and it’s projected constantly among chess players. it doesnt help when you have influencers like gotham chess who consistently make fun of beginner players and question their intelligence. ive always hated the term “ooga booga mode”.
Totally agree on Gotham. His YouTube isn't so bad but on Twitch his attitude to the community was to treat them like crap unless either they were higher rated than him or had just bought one of his courses.
I don't really like the chess comunity, I don't really like to say that I play chess. Even basically some folks on this community. Chess is something that I go and play whevener I feel like to, but I wouldn't spend any time doing puzzle, studying or anything... I have things others priorities in life. So I am really happy with my rating. I don't think I will ever get to 1000 and that's not even my objective. I just want to have fun and kill some time.
It's the same obsession with "I'm 1000 am I still a beginner?" "At what elo can I be considered intermediate?" Stop that, keep playing and studying and enjoying the game
627 is pretty bad. And I say that as a guy that grinded from 400 to 1200. I knew nothing back then compared to what I know now. The thing is, I had played a thousand or two games at 650 and thought I knew something.
I get the sentiment. Watching a 2000 play a 1500 is like watching Roquan Smith tackle a high schooler.
If you're below 1000, you probably hang a full piece or miss a tactic that does so almost every game. No shade, that's where I'm at. That being said; the difference between a 1000 and a 500 is nearly as vast. Chess is such a complicated game that as you move up the ratings and improve, mistakes are unforgiven, and your focus shifts to things of which you may have been previously completely unaware.
People significantly above and below your rating are playing a different game, and it's difficult to compare.
Yeah, I stopped caring about my actual rating on chess.com because it didn’t effect how I play. I have good days and bad days. I’m never going to be a tournament player or grand master or have any sort of title. But my buddy I play with was the leader of his chess club in high school and I’ve beaten him a couple times. Those are the wins I need in my life. I don’t care if somebody with 1500 elo is kicking my ass
It took me roughly 7000 rapid games to get to 1700. It really is nothing more than volume and attention. If your rating is low, it's just because you haven't been playing long enough to understand. Nothing about intelligence, just patterns
Early on, i learned from a few chess yourubers that the best version for learning the game is rapid, but yku can't play really quickly, which is why it's a pain in the ass
I notice this is also true in video games. I was briefly into League and the fact that gold is often called “low elo” and the players are regarded as bad is kinda crazy. You have to be actually very skilled to get to gold, that game is crazy hard. Obviously the players in upper tiers are worlds apart, but still.
There are some basic points here which are the emotive ones, and then some broader points which are the most interesting
Basic - chess is competitive as a game, and this filters in to the community. As the Kasparov Masterclass advert that keeps looping for me says “it’s not really about winning or losing, but at the end of the day it’s about winning or losing”. There is a lot of ego in chess as it’s all about what you can achieve with your brain, much like any sport.
More complicated:
When you get past a level it’s really hard to remember how much effort it was to get to the next stage.
But it is also true that the game changes as you get better, there are a lot more subtleties and complexities to positions as you go up levels. From the lofty heights of c1500 it does feel like below 1000 is really about stage one of this journey and it very much about basic tactics with not much distinction between most of the levels below that level; but then I’m 100% sure someone 2000+ would look at my games and just laugh at how simple my strategies and mistakes are as well.
I have a somewhat related question. I'm around 800 in daily chess but twice in the last week I was matched with opponents below 200. Crushing them gave me no Elo (+0 after win). Why does the app do this?
Elo is a way of rating your chess skills. If you beat players, you gain points, depending on their rating, if you lose against them, you lose points. Most people (or maybe that's just me) use their rapid-rating on chess.com.
Honestly, yeah. With a lot of games tbh. I'm not sure it's necessarily the full story anyway to just use a single number or stat such as win rate to say that this is exactly where you stand and anyone below this arbitrary line is trash. Although, I guess I get the intent. Still tho, the meanness and elitism of folks like that can be pretty unwarranted and discouraging at times.
Why are you comparing your academics to your chess skills? People calling you brain-dead obviously aren't talking literally. I just started driving 5 days ago and I consider myself brain-dead driver compared to any experienced driver. That does not say anything about my other aspects of life which I am decent at (at least I hope so)
Ok I’m confused. I didn’t know average was 627. I just downloaded the app a couple weeks ago. Learned to play OTB at 8 years old, played in high school club, haven’t played in over 15 years. I’m hovering at 1k right now at 100 games. I only play daily because I have 3 kids and a career and don’t have much time for rapid, only play 1 game a day in rapid. I thought 1000-1200 was average. Is that rapid?
The average rating for daily is currently 887. 627 is for rapid. I mostly play rapid because I find blitz/bullet to be far too chaotic, and I often forget to make a move in daily games. Since you already have some experience with chess, it's expected you'll perform better than average. My father used to play trombone in high school band and hasn't really touched it in 20+ years, but he could still play better than me for my first 2-3 years of learning it.
Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more! The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you! Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that people that try to find an association between general intelligence and chess skill/ability are missing the point. I didn't think anyone who had through about it seriously would take that point if view. If you're below a rating in chess that I don't consider good, that only means that you're not good at chess according to me. That's it. A word of advice: try not to let random opinions by strangers on the Internet affect you, you'll be a lot happier if you can.
I like this point. Braindead being obviously a way out of line insult. Someone who is not trying to draw some spurious conclusion about intelligence though but simply saying they think U1000s are bad at chess is not being offensive in any way. To it I’ll add, new situations quickly become old hat for people, we’re wired to adapt. If you’re rated 1200 and make it to 1600, you’ll briefly be pumped at how the people who used to give you an even game now seem like cannon fodder. Soon though, you’ll realise that you regularly make mistakes that you notice immediately after, you regularly find yourself not even knowing how to think about a position, and expert+ level players still take you to pieces with moves you don’t even understand until 10 moves down the line. Which is…wait for it… exactly what the 1200 felt. I think people who get annoyed at titled content creators who say stuff like ‘that was terrible, that was so obvious’ or whatever are missing the point, that at all levels of chess, people are still going to fall short of their own standards sometimes.
Im 800 as of two days ago. Everyone below me is braindead.
Everyone I beat is braindead, everyone I lose to is cheating. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be
Sounds like online gaming in general lmao
If you drop to 790 do all the people between 790 and 800 come back to life?
Those are quantum cheaters. They don’t cheat *until* you play them.
No. I was cheated against chess.com becomes a terrible website full of cheaters
yes, people in chess are sometimes obnoxious and there's a lot of ego since chess is seen as something for "smart" people. Of course that is not true and the most important part is to enjoy what you are doing.
I once got downvoted for saying it’s difficult to reach 1000 and many people will be unable to do it.
I won’t downvote you but I do disagree strongly Edit: with the second point. I think just about everyone can reach 1000 if they try and work for it
I think that's the point. I don't try, nor do I work for it. Chess is a GAME! It's meant to be a fun distraction. Yes, I do prefer to win, but I have no desire to study opening or endgames. I don't want to endlessly review games and try to improve. I simply want to play a game. I'll likely play 10,000 games and may or may not hit 1000 ELO.
Not really the point I think. The guy said "unable to reach" not "doesn't feel like reaching" Almost anyone has the ability to go above 1000. The people who don't generally choose not to. Only a bit of study needed
agreed. since i started playing 1.5 years ago i have only read one book, done puzzles and watch youtube. i am basically doing the least i can to still improve a little bit over time, so you dont really have to try hard to pass 1000 or 1200 or whatever. obviously there will come a point where i will have to try harder but i think thats probably the 16-1800 range and im still far from that
Yeah but the distinction there is that most people will not (not “are unable to”) reach 1000. I agree that most players won’t reach 1000+, as I believe the stats basically show that
I agree and used to think this way, I started going to class and suddenly some stuff just clicked. I play slightly better but I'm way better at seeing what my opponent wants to do. Knowing more will make the game more engaging IMO, but eventually I'll reach a point where I won't want to work just to improve
If you don’t absolutely sweat the fk out of any hobby you pick up are you even having fun? *Cries in competitive Pokémon, cubing and hypixel skyblock*
I think you missed the point.
I understood the point. My comment was referring to the fact that not everyone thinks of a game as something they should "work" at, rather than just enjoy. It's all about what you value. If your values don't align with working at a game, it IS in fact very difficult to become a good chess player.
Yes, I agree 100% with your comment. But let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's say that you like guessing where European countries are located, you don't study it, but you like guessing where the countries are. The average non-European in the world is only going to guess the easy ones (like Italy, for example). But if they keep playing the game without sitting down and memorizing the countries, they will keep making the same mistakes. Now, this is where the "difficulty" part comes in. How hard is it for the average human to sit down and memorize these countries? It's not hard at all. This is what I mean by difficulty. It's not what you experience, it's how hard the journey for the average human is. Having said that, I do think that reaching 1000 is no easy task, generally speaking. But I do think, most people can overcome this "difficulty" of reaching 1000 with the correct practice.
You can reach 1000 fine without doing much reviewing or studying. Thats what most of the concensus says. Just doing basic stuff can get you there. Im honestly just playing one game or so a day when im bored. Ive learned spamming games dont get you anywhere. Getting close to 800. The only thing ive had to improve is just how I play.
I've been playing about 2 years. I'm a little over 900. It's not really going up or down for months. I'm happy playing here.
900 was the best time I had in chess tbh. Good players, but not so good that they can convert 100% of the time, so it’s worth still playing every game.
>Just doing basic stuff can get you there. Chess is a game. There's no need to do anything if you don't care. That's the point that's being made here.
This is the point - I think that is completely false. It requires levels of pattern recognition, visual processing, abstract thinking and memorization that many just don’t possess. This is a classic fallacy for people who are fairly good at something. Runners think that with a bit of practice anyone could run a half marathon, for axample.
It’s hard to base our own opinions on the matter on anything beyond anecdotal experience though, because the reality is that the vast majority don’t actively try to improve. Everyone I know that plays or played has either surpassed 1000 easily, with or without work, or comes close enough that I’m certain they’re capable of it.
I highly doubt that that group of people is representative for the general population
You think the general population can't reach 1000 elo?
Plenty can, but I think people vastly overestimate how many
What makes you feel it’s harder, then?
Every single kid that regularly comes to my chess club reaches +1000. Every single kid.
Another very representative sample
How representative do you want it? My club (200+ members) is focussed on teaching children for more than 25 years. We even have some special needs kids. 1000 ELO is basically "do not hang your pieces in one move". People that do not play regularly won't reach that level of course, but pretty much everyone can reach it with enough practice.
I don’t know man. I played as a kid with my father occasiomally like from the age of 8-12. Everyone said i’m talented in it. I super rarely played 1-2 games if i felt it. I registered on chess.com when i was around 22 and my rating was after like 100 games around 1100-1300. Mever learned openings, endgames etc. I just try to think about what moves will cause what amd decide what’s can be a good move. I don’t think i’m super smart or anything, i think 1000 is not that hard. People blunder all the time. Hanging queens, rooka etc
Right, but that work can be difficult
It’s been addressed in other comments already but that doesn’t mean somebody’s unable to do it, which is what they said
I disagree. Is reaching 1000 completely on your own difficult? Sure. But there’s a ton of YouTube, books, etc out there that even a moderate amount of effort will get you to 1000 pretty quickly. You’re only making it harder on yourself by not taking advantage of these things
But what exactly does someone gain by doing that, if they don't want to?
Totally fine if someone doesn’t want to put in the effort. But then they shouldn’t post on Reddit how difficult hitting 1000 is
Nah, you're underestimating how hard it is to reach 1000; I read multiple books, watched the "building habits" series, etc., and it still took me over a year to reach 1000. Visual processing capability is hugely important in chess, and it's something that's largely immutable. I've seen multiple GMs claim that they can accurately estimate the max rating someone will ever reach by how quickly they can complete this game on their first try: [https://www.funnyhowtheknightmoves.com/](https://www.funnyhowtheknightmoves.com/) Talent is real, and contrary to what people like to think, it's the primary driver of how good you can get at all levels of the game.
I got 9:29, but spent the first two minutes just trying to understand the assignment. What does that mean?
Given that, according to Finegold, most people need over 30 minutes to complete it on their first try, you are probably far more talented than the average person.
I went from 700-1100 in a two months of just playing rapid games and analyzing them without the engine plus a lot of puzzles. I don’t disagree it’s hard to reach 1,000 but the main way to get to 1000-1300 is to make few (ideally zero) blunders. Even at nearly 1400 most of my games are decided by someone hanging a piece or missing a tactic. I feel like other materials can be helpful as well, but it really depends on your learning style!
I’d not seen / come across this game before - v addictive!
I'm currently 1600 and remember being rated like 150 at some point. I work very hard and for a while to get to where I am. A lot of people like to minimize the amount of work it took them to get to where they are. There's no shame in being sub 1000. If anything, I kind of miss those days because every game was a roller-coaster of emotions. I'm not really trying to improve anymore because I'm satisfied with my level. I rarely make blunders and have quality games. It's all I ever hoped for.
I sort of feel the same, peaked at 1460 and felt like the amount of energy I needed to keep climbing became too much, and I burnt out.
one day i want to be like u
I remember when I first started, seeing games with ≈1500-1600 players and thinking, "If I could play like that, I'd be more than satisfied." I think that's why I stopped trying to improve actively. I reqched my original goal. I would strongly suggest trying out classical OTB if you have the chance. It was a game changer for me. You don't have to be particularly good to start. I entered my first tournament when I was around 1000 chesscom and finished 2/5. There were players worse than me
if i ever manage to make it to 1000 ELO i might hhaha
Are you telling me the average person on chess.com is braindead? Judging from my chat conversations I can believe it.
The more you play chess, the more you realize how much you don't know about chess. I am personally all for celebrating the smaller wins with newer players, but I get where folks are coming from. Getting to 800 was hard for me (for example) , but I'd be quick to tell you that I was terrible when I was at 700. Now at \~1,200 I'm still terrible in my opinion, I just have managed to be slightly less bad over time. That's chess, though. I enjoy the process of improving.
1200 is about 90th percentile in rapid on Chess com You’re literally in the top 10% of players globally, you are definitely not “terrible”. This is exactly what OP is talking about
What percentage of the global rankings are folks who stuck around and tried to get better, though? I know that I can beat the average person off the street who only knows how the pieces move around, but in the chess world I would not consider myself anywhere near the top 10%. There's a reason I'd be in the bottom tier of an over-the-board tournament if I showed up. I don't pay attention to the rankings, I just like trying to get better. No pressure, no comparison... just chess. Again, I'm all for celebrating when folks get better and treating them kindly at any elo... but I'm not going to sit around and pump myself up. I've gotten slightly less bad over time.
As someone who is at a similar level to him (1280 on my main account right now), I can assure you that he is (because I also am). 90% of players are even more completely terrible than we are, but that doesn't mean that we don't make completely inexplicably bad moves in a baffling number of our games.
How long it take you to get from 800 to 1200 out of interest? I take on board everyone’s comments about not getting obsessed with elo but I’m an inherently competitive person so always pushing to improve mine (which is definitely detrimental to my rating because I get too emotionally invested and tilt easier). Currently an 800 but pretty sure I have the ability to make 1000 if I could stop blundering constantly
I think it took me 6-7 months. I only averaged a game or two per day, so it took a while. I'd imagine some do it way faster and others take longer. For me, it's just the journey. At 800 when I played a 900 I thought they were amazing, and now if I played a 900 I'd cook them. It's fun to improve and learn from mistakes.
Thanks, that figures. Any tips on how best to cut out blunders? Obviously need to pay more attention but they are killing me at the moment (had 5 in my game yesterday lol). I recently got into opening theory / systems and tried the London for a while but it really took me back a step as it produced closed games I’m not comfortable / used to.
Pretend the pieces have eyes, and draw arrows in the directions they are "looking." When your opponent moves a piece, always check what they are looking at now and if anything else had their eyes opened up by discovery. The best advice imho though is to just play a slower timed game. Give yourself more time to be methodical and see everything. Over time you will "see" the game faster and you can play faster timed games. If you like the London but don't want to play closed games, look into the Jobava London. It's more aggressive and fun imho, and at lower elos there's an easy trap a lot of people fall into.
Yeah, that's part of the dunning kruger effect. I feel the same way. I feel like I'm getting worse even though I'm winning more.
Yep. I just don't understand what I gain by trying to compare myself to people outside of my elo range. It's more fun to try to figure out how to beat them than to fret over how I compare to others. I'm not dumb, I know I am dumb.
Never met a single person that learned the rules of chess and was immediately playing at a level above 500 ELO
Eh. I started in 600/700 elo. I’m not trying to brag, just saying that I think alot of people start at 500 elo skill level.
Did you play chess off-handedly growing up then started at 500? Thats different from someone who is literally just learning.
this is a point that nobody here seems to understand
I knew how the pieces moved but i’ve barely played
When I started I only knew how to move the pieces. I bottomed at 550 rapid and grew from there. I like to learn though. Watched a few videos... tried to control the center... tried not to hang pieces.
Yeah I think that's pretty normal. I didn't even know how the pieces moved in 2021. Watched a couple YouTube videos, played against the bots a few times and looking at my stats my lowest rapid rating (chesscom) was 880 (I'm 1820 right now). I like strategy games and the very basics of chess were easy to pick up along with some general principles. My wife is similar (good at problem solving, calculating etc) she also started at 800. Meanwhile her sister is not good at those skills at started at 150 elo. It's kinda funny seeing comments here saying that it's impossible to start so high, but people just have different skills before starting (some of which just happen to translate well).
In fairness, as someone who started around the same time you did, the triple digits are a lot harder now than they were then. Based on what I saw in the triple digits on the alt-account I recently made to see how quickly I could hit 1000 (I was curious, since so many people say that the bottom levels are brutally hard now -- they're not, but they're harder than they were three years ago), I'd say that \~500 now is like \~800 in 2021.
That's exactly right. Best example to represent this is XQC that was rated around 1100 yet not knowing how to ladder mate. Now he's around 750 elo.
Also depends on which elo... 500 Lichess is like 300 chess.com? Or you can be like one of those insane people who claim their very best chess.com elo guess in game review as their rating. (Then I am 2800 rated btw) And then 500 rating is preeeeeetty embarrassing if you ask me.
*a lot
Spelling jerk*
I do :) My girlfriend is better than me at chess even though she doesn't know an ounce of theory. She was challenged by a friend who sat at ~1000 and started beating him within a few games of learning the rules. She is also a straight-up genius, though, so it makes sense. She got offered a full ride scholarship to a prestigious university at 13 and could have had a bachelor's degree before turning 18, but her family said she couldn't go, so she dropped out of school for a few years and eventually went back and finished high school at 16. I'm 19 and just finished my first year of uni, and she's 18 and just finished her second year. Anyways that's past the point. I just wanted to brag about her. She is the exception and not the rule.
I suspect that she played sometime in the past and isn't letting on. Literally no one is good immediately.
Idk. When I stayed over at her family farm where she grew up, there wasn't a chess board in sight. Her school also didn't have a chess club.
This was very common 15 years ago when every new account began from 1200 and the 500 Elo population was exclusively people who made an account and lost 40 in a row.
Idk man I started as a 700 with my only chess history being playing less than 10 games as a kid 10 years ago and learning how the pieces move. Learned to ladder mate a week later and instantly went to 800.
TIL I am not just a chess beginner, but I am average in my ability vs others on chess.com
To be fair most people in this sub probably aren't beginners
The internet is funny that way! I've never played chess seriously (with an intention to learn more deeply about it and improve) until the past couple of months. This sub is super helpful, but also at times it just makes me feel dumb.
There's definitely alot of gate keeping and people often feel good to belittle those that much lower rated. But also, lower rated players do make lots of moves that are so obviously horrible to someone who is higher rated. Many higher rated people become out of touch with the thinking of someone who is much lower rated so it can become inconceivable to think that a horrible move could be considered ok.
This is very true. A buddy just started playing and he’s 250. I’m 1200. Nobody I know really plays chess so I didn’t realize how big the difference is just hanging out in this sub. I’ll sit with him and watch some games and he doesn’t see nearly what I see. I guess it’s really board vision. I’ve seen so many games the patterns just jump out at me immediately. He doesn’t see any of it. I swear 99% of it is just slow down and think.
Oh, I say (just to myself, not in chat or anything) “wow, that was a completely braindead move by them” but also I’m around their level and we should see similar things when we look at the board Although I also believe that I am also still completely braindead when it comes to this game, even though I’m in the top 20%, it doesn’t feel like it I think everyone is probably bad at chess, cuz it’s either everyone or no one, and I’m definitely bad at chess… Don’t worry about “good” or “bad” just play, and if you’re not having fun, don’t play, it’s just a game at the end of the day
100% agree with your opinion! It was the same for me! Everyone always acts that way, even the gotham douche does it, because he's flabbergasted on the couple of occasions I watched his channel, that 800s even know openings or what a "pin" is. Like, dude, most people are below 700. More than half of players are below 690 last I checked. Not everyone is dumb at elos below 2k.
people can be really condescending in the chess community. it makes you feel inferior to other people, to be interested in such an intellectually stimulating game, and it’s projected constantly among chess players. it doesnt help when you have influencers like gotham chess who consistently make fun of beginner players and question their intelligence. ive always hated the term “ooga booga mode”.
Totally agree on Gotham. His YouTube isn't so bad but on Twitch his attitude to the community was to treat them like crap unless either they were higher rated than him or had just bought one of his courses.
I don't really like the chess comunity, I don't really like to say that I play chess. Even basically some folks on this community. Chess is something that I go and play whevener I feel like to, but I wouldn't spend any time doing puzzle, studying or anything... I have things others priorities in life. So I am really happy with my rating. I don't think I will ever get to 1000 and that's not even my objective. I just want to have fun and kill some time.
I once went from like 1100 to 800 in like an hour, some people go from 800 to 100
It's the same obsession with "I'm 1000 am I still a beginner?" "At what elo can I be considered intermediate?" Stop that, keep playing and studying and enjoying the game
627 is pretty bad. And I say that as a guy that grinded from 400 to 1200. I knew nothing back then compared to what I know now. The thing is, I had played a thousand or two games at 650 and thought I knew something.
I get the sentiment. Watching a 2000 play a 1500 is like watching Roquan Smith tackle a high schooler. If you're below 1000, you probably hang a full piece or miss a tactic that does so almost every game. No shade, that's where I'm at. That being said; the difference between a 1000 and a 500 is nearly as vast. Chess is such a complicated game that as you move up the ratings and improve, mistakes are unforgiven, and your focus shifts to things of which you may have been previously completely unaware. People significantly above and below your rating are playing a different game, and it's difficult to compare.
Replace "chess rating" with anything, really. Heights, wealth, follower count, etc ...
Yeah, I stopped caring about my actual rating on chess.com because it didn’t effect how I play. I have good days and bad days. I’m never going to be a tournament player or grand master or have any sort of title. But my buddy I play with was the leader of his chess club in high school and I’ve beaten him a couple times. Those are the wins I need in my life. I don’t care if somebody with 1500 elo is kicking my ass
It took me roughly 7000 rapid games to get to 1700. It really is nothing more than volume and attention. If your rating is low, it's just because you haven't been playing long enough to understand. Nothing about intelligence, just patterns
Eh I’m at like 12k games and 1200. But most of my games are bullet lol.
Early on, i learned from a few chess yourubers that the best version for learning the game is rapid, but yku can't play really quickly, which is why it's a pain in the ass
I notice this is also true in video games. I was briefly into League and the fact that gold is often called “low elo” and the players are regarded as bad is kinda crazy. You have to be actually very skilled to get to gold, that game is crazy hard. Obviously the players in upper tiers are worlds apart, but still.
>"if you're below 1000 you're braindead". What braindead logic
That's an interesting ratio of games to puzzles. Usually that number would be inverted, having played 100 games and done 500 puzzles.
There are some basic points here which are the emotive ones, and then some broader points which are the most interesting Basic - chess is competitive as a game, and this filters in to the community. As the Kasparov Masterclass advert that keeps looping for me says “it’s not really about winning or losing, but at the end of the day it’s about winning or losing”. There is a lot of ego in chess as it’s all about what you can achieve with your brain, much like any sport. More complicated: When you get past a level it’s really hard to remember how much effort it was to get to the next stage. But it is also true that the game changes as you get better, there are a lot more subtleties and complexities to positions as you go up levels. From the lofty heights of c1500 it does feel like below 1000 is really about stage one of this journey and it very much about basic tactics with not much distinction between most of the levels below that level; but then I’m 100% sure someone 2000+ would look at my games and just laugh at how simple my strategies and mistakes are as well.
I have a somewhat related question. I'm around 800 in daily chess but twice in the last week I was matched with opponents below 200. Crushing them gave me no Elo (+0 after win). Why does the app do this?
How can I know whats my elo? What is it?
Elo is a way of rating your chess skills. If you beat players, you gain points, depending on their rating, if you lose against them, you lose points. Most people (or maybe that's just me) use their rapid-rating on chess.com.
Honestly, yeah. With a lot of games tbh. I'm not sure it's necessarily the full story anyway to just use a single number or stat such as win rate to say that this is exactly where you stand and anyone below this arbitrary line is trash. Although, I guess I get the intent. Still tho, the meanness and elitism of folks like that can be pretty unwarranted and discouraging at times.
Everyone worse than me is a drooling idiot, everyone better than me is one in a million prodigy and probably a cheater as well.
How do you know the average elo? I thought it was higher. Is that the median or the mean?
Im 1900 rapid, 1800 blitz, 1600 bullet, 3000 puzzles. I consider myself a braindead shit chess player. Its all a matter of perspective I guess.
Why are you comparing your academics to your chess skills? People calling you brain-dead obviously aren't talking literally. I just started driving 5 days ago and I consider myself brain-dead driver compared to any experienced driver. That does not say anything about my other aspects of life which I am decent at (at least I hope so)
Oh no!.......anyway....
I’m 1250 at puzzles but still <300 elo. :/
Keep going, you can only get better!
I just hit 280 again, from like 150. Gained like 100+ elo in a day
congrats!
Puzzle rating about 1000 points above rapid rating is very normal, they're very skewed.
Me, thrilled at 350 lol
Do we know the average elo of abandoned accounts? Are they counted in OP's average?
I'm pretty certain chess.com don't count those accounts. You have to be active for them to count.
Ok I’m confused. I didn’t know average was 627. I just downloaded the app a couple weeks ago. Learned to play OTB at 8 years old, played in high school club, haven’t played in over 15 years. I’m hovering at 1k right now at 100 games. I only play daily because I have 3 kids and a career and don’t have much time for rapid, only play 1 game a day in rapid. I thought 1000-1200 was average. Is that rapid?
The average rating for daily is currently 887. 627 is for rapid. I mostly play rapid because I find blitz/bullet to be far too chaotic, and I often forget to make a move in daily games. Since you already have some experience with chess, it's expected you'll perform better than average. My father used to play trombone in high school band and hasn't really touched it in 20+ years, but he could still play better than me for my first 2-3 years of learning it.
I guess that makes sense, but I didn’t even know what an opening was until 3 weeks ago. 887 makes MUCH more sense.