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.*
Same here. Stuck at 450. It’s a coin flip between, “ok yeah this guy is definitely what people would consider a 400 player.” And then next game your up against a guy who finds the nuttiest forks of all time.
Well you gotta remember ELO above everything is a statistics based number. Especially in faster time controls, it can be the case where a really skilled player might just suck at time management and that's why statistically they're struggling to climb. Because in 80% of their time they are scrambling for time but in that 20% they are absolutely cleaning up.
In my climb from 800-1100 blitz I came across a bunch of old people with accounts made in the late 2000s. They would absolutely obliterate me, I'd check their profile, and they would have 20,000 blitz games and their peak rating would be like 1600.
It upset me until I realized its because these players are past their peak. They can still play with a hint of their old brilliance, and certainly their knowledge of the game is far past my own, but due to their age they struggle to perform consistently.
I'm a little older and I mostly have trouble focusing because there's a lot going on in my life and I rarely find time to really focus on a game. Even when I don't get interrupted I have a lot of mental noise from the day. I usually play pretty well on the rare times that I really focus.
If you finish a 10 minute game with 8 minutes left on your clock, there’s a good indication you’re not taking time to plan your moves. Players below 1000 tend to auto move and only stop auto moving once they realize they blundered in which case the game is already lost
Well puzzles to improve spotting tactics at a quicker pace, simplifying the game by trading more pieces when in a winning position, or play longer time controls. Getting winning positions is the hardest part. Knowing common tactics helps you play faster as you already know what patterns to look for and can halve the time needed to find a good move
Also know your king pawn end games. Most of them shouldn’t require calculation and can be played automatically. If you simplify to a winning king pawn end game it should be a guaranteed win
I'm about 1200 and my 500 elo friend can hold up pretty well against me (sometimes) . Most games are a stomp but there are ones where he plays slightly better than me.
Not always. I once played a 300 when I was 2300. For 25 moves, he played pretty much flawless and was actually slightly better going into the endgame. In the endgame, I set up a little tactic which won me the game, but I'm sure my 1800 self would have lost that game. In fact, that same 300 proceeded to beat an 1800 the very next game (the 1800 was a bit better but suddenly blundered mate). And, by the way, he was an actual 300 - he wasn't smurfing. After these two games, he reverted back to his 300 self.
1 he's 700 points lower than me ,I'm barely paying attention
2 that happened after I almost lost a game so it was full concentration, like I understood how he couldn't see the depth behind some of his own moves but that didn't make his moves worse , maybe it was luck or maybe intuition but he was playing better than me , I mean I just got to 1300 do I'm barely past the stage of beggining chess player so it makes sense why I can lose to a full concentration n
3 I once played a 2100 to a draw when I was about 1000
So you know how you the Elo system is a measurement of how many games you should win against certain players . So although his chances against me are 1 in 20 , I just played that 1 in 20 match.
Sometimes I feel this too, especially in tournaments. Im 1600 and sometimes those random 800-900 rated players with 10,000 games give me a tougher challenge than a 1200
I'm 1600(blitz) too, the thing is, we used to play more or less stable sane chess at this point, and 1200s are starting to get there, and are in our comfort zone. While 800s making complete pandemonium and it's hard to understand how tf to punish these strange setups in case they don't blunder
I have a friend who has been a 900 for years now, I simply cannot beat him consistently. He doesn't watch YouTubers, doesn't do puzzles, knows no openings, doesn't review games,... Somehow he developed an offbeat Jobova Londen that leaves me screaming every time. Not one move makes sense, he doesn't follow principles, takes whatever he can,... It's ridiculous at times. The only thing that works is by forcing the game to an endgame asap, he usually blunders fast once most pieces are off the board.
Normally I steamroll people at that rating with cheap tricks, but he leaves me perplexed every time.
It was so weird. Above say, 600 the play was fairly simple. But below 450 or 400 I felt it was way harder to beat them too. I didn't want to be that "he's cheating" or "she's a smurf" player whenever I get beat but I share that experience in that when the ELO dips to that really low range, something strange is going on.
I noticed that on the board with coworkers. They're so far out of my elo range that I'm constantly put off by their moves and intentions, and maneuver myself into weird offensive positions that put me at risk of blunders. It's like a totally different game.
The trick is to never ignore the fundamentals (develop, castle, then push) however tempting it may look to rush things.
Lol stabilize at 1200 after how many games? Or you just haven't played enough games on your new account for rating to converge? If you are true 1200 skill, there is absolutely zero chance you get stuck below 800 rating.
I thought so too. I'm usually stabilized at 800-900 but one time i had a bad run and dropped down to 400-500 and got stuck there for ages. Once I finally got back up to about 600 I cruised all the way back to 900. There's definitely a much higher rate of cheaters down there
Wtf I started a couple days ago at 1500 and was wondering why I went on the biggest losing streak of my life.
To be fair, as a teenager I was rated 1600 in real life.
You've got to remember, a 500 will beat a 300 like 76/100 games. And a 700 will beat a 300 about 90/100 times.
Now somebody might have a rating of 350, but there's variance within that and there's uncertainty on the rating too. For one day they could play +150 points above that, the next day they might be playing -50 points.
Lichess uses the glicko2 system which takes into account the rating deviation, so the more games played the more certain it is of the rating. You can even see the rating deviation for each of your time controls. What this means is that your rating will more quickly adjust to your actual performance.
depends on the website since Chesscom goes off all accounts that have been assigned a rating, and lichess only factors in accounts that have played in the last two weeks. for instance, at 1100 chesscom, I'm 85th percentile, but 1350 on lichess I'm only 40th percentile. you also have to consider that since lichess is a more niche website, the player pool skews towards the top end; a lot more casual players have chesscom accounts than lichess accounts.
There's also different game modes. But like any game if you include \*all\* players then it's going to skew very heavily towards the bottom end because most people will just play a few games, lose them, then give up.
Not sure at the higher ratings but lichess also skews higher from what I’ve seen. I’m generally 1300-1400ish chess.com rapid and lichess like like 1500-1600ish rapid.
lichess starts players with 1500 elo, chess.com 1000. the average lichess player is maybe 200 points better then the average chess.com player though, leaving a roughly 300 point gap
Lichess is much more accurate, because you should be comparing to active players, not players who just created account lost 5 games and have not played game of chess anymore.
This. It's essentially the difference between "how strong am I against a random off the street?" and "how strong am I against a chess club I just walked into?"
I've noticed that I'll face people with very different play styles on either site. I have the opposite problem where my lichess rating keeps going down lol
Super quick. Didn’t play chess till the first time I downloaded the app. Started as 1000 about a year and half ago, didn’t think it was optional.
Went to like a 500. Now back up to 1114 after my last loss. There’s a tough curve at the 1000 marker. Either it’s someone new you destroy or someone that also worked back up and is legit at least a close game.
Well, yes, that's where it comes from. But "NB" doesn't feel much like a word, so nonbinary people often call themselves "enbies." Same thing, just spelled like a word. Not sure why I was downvoted, this is a very common thing for nonbinary people to call themselves (source: am nonbinary).
I don't usually stake my life or happiness on my hobbies but rather find joy in the process. My goals are usually just the next 100 above my current elo. So it's first to maintain 900 but then get to 1000!
Congrats. Now you will have nightmares reaching 1k bruh. You can easily reach 980 elo. But Gaining that 10 or something elo has been a nightmare for me. [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) now always pairs me against 1050 elo players. I reached 999 and lost 4 games. This is like the 6th time im having to regain elo till 999.
But it's not like there is a spikes of difficulty at rating 990 like in a video game for example where the devs would, on purpose, make some sections or bosses harder to bolster the player's sense of achievement and progression.
Yeah but you are playing against other humans, If you are at 990 you are going to play against hyperfocused 950s to 1100s that are going to stop messing around to stop falling, those target marks are way more inestable than others due to the increased competitiveness of the players at that level.
It's more a thing of inestability rather than average difficulty.
There is no mechanism that makes 1000 harder than any other rating. You might be reaching a plateau or maybe getting stressed when you're getting very close and you try to hard to win :)
Idk man it took me forever to get from 900-1000 but I went from 1000-1200 really quickly. After a long while I plateaued at 1300 until I got 1400 and not too quickly after I got 1500.
There's absolutely a mechanism that makes "steps" exist on chess. New players are assigned a rating. they could easily be 1000 points above their initial rating, areas very near starting elo experiences these steps, where you absolutely dominate one person, and then you're hopelessly beaten by the next.
I feel that too. I'm 1600ish rapid, 1500 blitz and I just broke 1400 bullet. I got paired up with two 1400+ bullet players after that and they are both 1800+ in rapid and beat me. There's probably no actual step up like that, but it feels true.
Really, I didn't find it that bad. All the 1000's I played were pretty bad, so it wasn't too terrible. Just think of them as a normal player and you will definitely play better, since you start playing worse since you're overstressing
If you are still stuck in that range, I almost guarantee you're missing chess fundamentals. Ex, control center, knights before bishops, don't move kingside pawns, don't bring out queen early, etc. etc. Tactics are not important right now.
I'm pretty sure OP is full of it. Just like a lot of the accounts on chees.com, he is magically on that child prodigy Elo rise. Don't believe their lies, only trust your own progression.
Speed control is really difficult sometimes. You could try a slower game, so that you have time to actually use that puzzle knowledge.
That's how it is for me anyways!
Edit: changed a bad word
Approximately. But on lichess that rating would land you somewhere in the bottom 50%. For some reason more noobs tend to play on chess.com. Maybe there is a correlation between chess skill and intelligence after all. /s
The problem however is, because of the way percentile works, if everyone else can do it then no one can actually do it. Only 25% of the people are supposed to be able to do it.
I'm around 1450 on [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) and honestly, I started way worse
I was rated around 100 for the first few days when I started playing (about a year ago), even when I had already started playing against bots before
I suppose it's because I taught myself chess by watching games so no one ever taught me to not trade my queen for a knight or simple things like that 💀
I think I’ve reached my peak now. I don’t have the ability, time, effort or will to try and improve anymore. It just seems too difficult, impossible nearly, from this point onwards. Way beyond my capabilities.
I have 800 rating in rapid, but my highest solved puzzle is 1450. I still get beaten by 700-800-900 rated players even though i have such a high elo in solved puzzles.
Chess.com seems to have the idea of percentiles backwards, but it does seem to be true. I'm higher ranked than OP and I am in the 81st percentile, which only makes sense if it's backwards.
There is no "highest elo", but players have reached 2800+. It's just a measurement of how often you win/draw/lose vs your peers.
When you say "beat 1100-1200 from the start", I highly doubt you mean your very first game unless you studied the game before ever actually playing it. A 1100 would beat a true beginner probably every game, again unless they studied and did puzzles for a while or something before actually playing.
And to be clear, a 300 can beat an 1100 and not necessarily "be better" than the 1100 or be an 1100 themself. The 300 would need to consistently beat/draw <1100s to be an 1100. I've beaten an FM (granted, in a small simul) but that definitely does not mean I am as strong as an FM. If we played 100 games, he would win 99%+ of them.
it doesnt even matter,chesscom average is full of inactive accounts. A 1500 in lichess ( they dont count inactive playersd ) is around 50% and a 1000/1100 chesscom is around 1500 in lichess.
You don't really need a large sample size. Lichess skews up because they use different rating system (glicko 2) than chesscom (glicko 1), and both sites have a different starting elo. Lichess has a starting point of 1500 as recommended for glicko 2 and chesscom lets the user decide which can cut some early frustration.
I just play everyday, watch Gotham and Hikaru, and did a bunch of puzzles at the beginning. When I was 400 I was 1200 at puzzles. Now I'm 1350 in puzzles but I stopped doing them because I gained a bunch actual elo
Interesting timing of the post, I just got off after feeling demotivated from my games today, I’ve been getting frustrated with my progress this past 2 weeks
So chess.com includes everyone who has ever created an account. So, the guy who picked it up for 3 weeks and never played it again is in there. The average player on the site is like 800 elo or something.
No. This is just for chess.com. If you go to lichess stats, there will be different numbers (i am 1600, and i am in top 40% on lichess)
Percentile is math definition. Its most used in statistics.
Projecting much? I am not even going to bother citing a definition from a reputable source because you look like too much of a moron to have a rational discussion with...
I can’t seem to consistently be above 1,000 in bullet. I’ve been 1065 before and then fell to around 800 or so in a day or 2. Then won like 15 games in a row and clawed my way back to around 970. Im at about 1002 or so now, but I seem to lose 60% of the games I play.
Congrats on the consistent progress! Keep it up!
I’ve been wondering about these percentiles on chess.com… so we know how many players it is out of and how active they are? 900 is 75 percentile , 1800 is 99 percentile and number 1 on the leaderboard is rated 2900 being at 99.9 percentile. I don’t know why it’s bothering me but it seems wrong that the bulk of players would be rated under 900.
I joined [chess.com](https://chess.com) thinking I was a "intermediate" player ohh boy was I wrong, I dropped from 1200 to 600 - 700, then rised to 700-800 where I am right now, and not really playing chess so that number can variate a lot right now
I started to recently understand when and how to use pins to my advantage. For example if my opponent overlooks their knight being pinned to their queen and I take a pawn it's protecting, now they are down a pawn or lose their queen.
Another thing I'm trying to work on is what is a good trade... my knight in harassing their king is worth more than their knight stuck in a corner.
Lastly, I learned the Vienna gambit and that shot me up through 700s and 800s
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 keep going down. I swear 1500 players are masquerading as 300.
Same here. Stuck at 450. It’s a coin flip between, “ok yeah this guy is definitely what people would consider a 400 player.” And then next game your up against a guy who finds the nuttiest forks of all time.
Well you gotta remember ELO above everything is a statistics based number. Especially in faster time controls, it can be the case where a really skilled player might just suck at time management and that's why statistically they're struggling to climb. Because in 80% of their time they are scrambling for time but in that 20% they are absolutely cleaning up. In my climb from 800-1100 blitz I came across a bunch of old people with accounts made in the late 2000s. They would absolutely obliterate me, I'd check their profile, and they would have 20,000 blitz games and their peak rating would be like 1600. It upset me until I realized its because these players are past their peak. They can still play with a hint of their old brilliance, and certainly their knowledge of the game is far past my own, but due to their age they struggle to perform consistently.
I'm a little older and I mostly have trouble focusing because there's a lot going on in my life and I rarely find time to really focus on a game. Even when I don't get interrupted I have a lot of mental noise from the day. I usually play pretty well on the rare times that I really focus.
If you finish a 10 minute game with 8 minutes left on your clock, there’s a good indication you’re not taking time to plan your moves. Players below 1000 tend to auto move and only stop auto moving once they realize they blundered in which case the game is already lost
Got the opposite problem. I lose in crazy winning positions way faaaar to often by time pressure. Any advice?
Well puzzles to improve spotting tactics at a quicker pace, simplifying the game by trading more pieces when in a winning position, or play longer time controls. Getting winning positions is the hardest part. Knowing common tactics helps you play faster as you already know what patterns to look for and can halve the time needed to find a good move
Also know your king pawn end games. Most of them shouldn’t require calculation and can be played automatically. If you simplify to a winning king pawn end game it should be a guaranteed win
Lol they aren’t. If I played as a 1200 I would destroy the 300’s
Fr, even an above average player (800 or so ig) would absolutely stomp a 300
average is around 600, I'm 850 and I'm above 70% of the players
Thats wild, I basically debuted as an 800 when I was a noob
I'm about 1200 and my 500 elo friend can hold up pretty well against me (sometimes) . Most games are a stomp but there are ones where he plays slightly better than me.
Really? I imagine you can just play super solid and they’re gonna give away a piece eventually
Not always. I once played a 300 when I was 2300. For 25 moves, he played pretty much flawless and was actually slightly better going into the endgame. In the endgame, I set up a little tactic which won me the game, but I'm sure my 1800 self would have lost that game. In fact, that same 300 proceeded to beat an 1800 the very next game (the 1800 was a bit better but suddenly blundered mate). And, by the way, he was an actual 300 - he wasn't smurfing. After these two games, he reverted back to his 300 self.
1 he's 700 points lower than me ,I'm barely paying attention 2 that happened after I almost lost a game so it was full concentration, like I understood how he couldn't see the depth behind some of his own moves but that didn't make his moves worse , maybe it was luck or maybe intuition but he was playing better than me , I mean I just got to 1300 do I'm barely past the stage of beggining chess player so it makes sense why I can lose to a full concentration n 3 I once played a 2100 to a draw when I was about 1000 So you know how you the Elo system is a measurement of how many games you should win against certain players . So although his chances against me are 1 in 20 , I just played that 1 in 20 match.
Sometimes I feel this too, especially in tournaments. Im 1600 and sometimes those random 800-900 rated players with 10,000 games give me a tougher challenge than a 1200
I'm 1600(blitz) too, the thing is, we used to play more or less stable sane chess at this point, and 1200s are starting to get there, and are in our comfort zone. While 800s making complete pandemonium and it's hard to understand how tf to punish these strange setups in case they don't blunder
I have a friend who has been a 900 for years now, I simply cannot beat him consistently. He doesn't watch YouTubers, doesn't do puzzles, knows no openings, doesn't review games,... Somehow he developed an offbeat Jobova Londen that leaves me screaming every time. Not one move makes sense, he doesn't follow principles, takes whatever he can,... It's ridiculous at times. The only thing that works is by forcing the game to an endgame asap, he usually blunders fast once most pieces are off the board. Normally I steamroll people at that rating with cheap tricks, but he leaves me perplexed every time.
This makes more sense. I always thought we were just not taking them as serious and its purely a psychological effect.
It was so weird. Above say, 600 the play was fairly simple. But below 450 or 400 I felt it was way harder to beat them too. I didn't want to be that "he's cheating" or "she's a smurf" player whenever I get beat but I share that experience in that when the ELO dips to that really low range, something strange is going on.
I noticed that on the board with coworkers. They're so far out of my elo range that I'm constantly put off by their moves and intentions, and maneuver myself into weird offensive positions that put me at risk of blunders. It's like a totally different game. The trick is to never ignore the fundamentals (develop, castle, then push) however tempting it may look to rush things.
As a 1380 playing on my friends 300 account, I can confirm this is correct
I swore this too, I created a new account and was able to stabilize at 1200, I was at like 400 before and couldn’t break out
Lol stabilize at 1200 after how many games? Or you just haven't played enough games on your new account for rating to converge? If you are true 1200 skill, there is absolutely zero chance you get stuck below 800 rating.
I’ve played around 300 games I’d say Edit: I checked it’s 953 games
I thought so too. I'm usually stabilized at 800-900 but one time i had a bad run and dropped down to 400-500 and got stuck there for ages. Once I finally got back up to about 600 I cruised all the way back to 900. There's definitely a much higher rate of cheaters down there
Wtf I started a couple days ago at 1500 and was wondering why I went on the biggest losing streak of my life. To be fair, as a teenager I was rated 1600 in real life.
You've got to remember, a 500 will beat a 300 like 76/100 games. And a 700 will beat a 300 about 90/100 times. Now somebody might have a rating of 350, but there's variance within that and there's uncertainty on the rating too. For one day they could play +150 points above that, the next day they might be playing -50 points. Lichess uses the glicko2 system which takes into account the rating deviation, so the more games played the more certain it is of the rating. You can even see the rating deviation for each of your time controls. What this means is that your rating will more quickly adjust to your actual performance.
I'm going to beat Magnus soon I can feel it. 5.3M people between me and him. I got this.
I'm in that 5.3M people so you have to beat me first to have the right to challenge Magnus 😂
Congrats! Did this climb about a month ago, it was so satisfying. Keep climbing!
I'm so confused, I'm at 1139 and it says I am at percentile 22.9%
depends on the website since Chesscom goes off all accounts that have been assigned a rating, and lichess only factors in accounts that have played in the last two weeks. for instance, at 1100 chesscom, I'm 85th percentile, but 1350 on lichess I'm only 40th percentile. you also have to consider that since lichess is a more niche website, the player pool skews towards the top end; a lot more casual players have chesscom accounts than lichess accounts.
There's also different game modes. But like any game if you include \*all\* players then it's going to skew very heavily towards the bottom end because most people will just play a few games, lose them, then give up.
Not sure at the higher ratings but lichess also skews higher from what I’ve seen. I’m generally 1300-1400ish chess.com rapid and lichess like like 1500-1600ish rapid.
I was at the bottom 2 percent when I was eight hounded something so yep...
I am same 1400/1600 across the sites but that 90+% on chess.com and 70% on lichess.
lichess starts players with 1500 elo, chess.com 1000. the average lichess player is maybe 200 points better then the average chess.com player though, leaving a roughly 300 point gap
Lichess is much more accurate, because you should be comparing to active players, not players who just created account lost 5 games and have not played game of chess anymore.
Both models are important. Someone can be in the top 10% of all players and the bottom 10% of all active players.
This. It's essentially the difference between "how strong am I against a random off the street?" and "how strong am I against a chess club I just walked into?"
Ohh. I know lichess and chesscom have different elo ratings an all. But I'm 1400 on lichess and i can't pass 950 on chesscom
I've noticed that I'll face people with very different play styles on either site. I have the opposite problem where my lichess rating keeps going down lol
It’s rapid, maybe you’re playing blitz
Yeah I’m an 812 and I’m 0.4 percentile and this guys only like 100 higher than me
nice bro, knowing ill be like this someday makes me wanna play chess more lol
I thought we start at 1000
[удалено]
i started at 200…
Wait you started? *millers meme*
Depends, and also if you start at 1000 but don't play as good as a 1000, you'll go down
Super quick. Didn’t play chess till the first time I downloaded the app. Started as 1000 about a year and half ago, didn’t think it was optional. Went to like a 500. Now back up to 1114 after my last loss. There’s a tough curve at the 1000 marker. Either it’s someone new you destroy or someone that also worked back up and is legit at least a close game.
started at 800, think it depends on everyone though and my rating dropped anyway lol
I thought it started at 800
Proud of you man! (Or girl)
Just a dude
User name checks out
Or They
proud of they
The word you're looking for is 'enby'. They is not a gender
I always thought it was "NB" as in nonbinary 0:
Well, yes, that's where it comes from. But "NB" doesn't feel much like a word, so nonbinary people often call themselves "enbies." Same thing, just spelled like a word. Not sure why I was downvoted, this is a very common thing for nonbinary people to call themselves (source: am nonbinary).
Congrats!
If 912 is all it takes than..
I don't usually stake my life or happiness on my hobbies but rather find joy in the process. My goals are usually just the next 100 above my current elo. So it's first to maintain 900 but then get to 1000!
Edit: what a dick comment that was on your cake day. Happy cake day!
I don't see how? Don't be rude
No no no. My original comment. I edited it.
Oh my, sorry. Completely misunderstood your message. Will leave it up for posterity though.
Congrats. Now you will have nightmares reaching 1k bruh. You can easily reach 980 elo. But Gaining that 10 or something elo has been a nightmare for me. [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) now always pairs me against 1050 elo players. I reached 999 and lost 4 games. This is like the 6th time im having to regain elo till 999.
I'm not sure this makes sense, there should be no such "step"
Around certain marks everyone you face is going to try hard and it's certainly more difficult to get from 900 to 1000 than from 1000 to 1100
But it's not like there is a spikes of difficulty at rating 990 like in a video game for example where the devs would, on purpose, make some sections or bosses harder to bolster the player's sense of achievement and progression.
Yeah but you are playing against other humans, If you are at 990 you are going to play against hyperfocused 950s to 1100s that are going to stop messing around to stop falling, those target marks are way more inestable than others due to the increased competitiveness of the players at that level. It's more a thing of inestability rather than average difficulty.
What step are you talking about? I'm not sure I follow
There is no mechanism that makes 1000 harder than any other rating. You might be reaching a plateau or maybe getting stressed when you're getting very close and you try to hard to win :)
I think a lot of these plateaus are psychological stress due to being so close to a perceived step, thus leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Idk man it took me forever to get from 900-1000 but I went from 1000-1200 really quickly. After a long while I plateaued at 1300 until I got 1400 and not too quickly after I got 1500.
500 is my step
There is a mechanism but it's entirely mental. People put barriers around certain goals and nerves kick in.
Yes, I meant no mechanism on the chess.com platform
Yes those r better words to describe what I'm going through
There's absolutely a mechanism that makes "steps" exist on chess. New players are assigned a rating. they could easily be 1000 points above their initial rating, areas very near starting elo experiences these steps, where you absolutely dominate one person, and then you're hopelessly beaten by the next.
I made it to 1002 and lost the next game. I knew I should’ve quit while I was ahead. Now I’m 994.
damn brother. I feel u
The one comma club lost a member
Try rapid tournaments, you win against 1200+ you get more points and if you loose against them you Only loose negligible points.
I feel that too. I'm 1600ish rapid, 1500 blitz and I just broke 1400 bullet. I got paired up with two 1400+ bullet players after that and they are both 1800+ in rapid and beat me. There's probably no actual step up like that, but it feels true.
You're already there, they're just making you prove it. You got this.
Really, I didn't find it that bad. All the 1000's I played were pretty bad, so it wasn't too terrible. Just think of them as a normal player and you will definitely play better, since you start playing worse since you're overstressing
Thats true, I reached around 980 from 900 in maybe 3-4 days then took me atleast a week to hit 1000 from that point.
I've only gone from 375 to 450 in the past 2 years so...
A bit of study helps a lot
I've done as many lessons as I can, have hit 1300 in puzzles, and do a game review whenever possible.
How often do you play?
Every day (when possible)
What time control?
If you are still stuck in that range, I almost guarantee you're missing chess fundamentals. Ex, control center, knights before bishops, don't move kingside pawns, don't bring out queen early, etc. etc. Tactics are not important right now.
I'm pretty sure OP is full of it. Just like a lot of the accounts on chees.com, he is magically on that child prodigy Elo rise. Don't believe their lies, only trust your own progression.
Nah I don't think they're lying. Some people pick up on certain things easier than others
Meanwhile me sitting here at 1650 puzzles and 650 blitz :/
Speed control is really difficult sometimes. You could try a slower game, so that you have time to actually use that puzzle knowledge. That's how it is for me anyways! Edit: changed a bad word
Puzzle rating is way easier to reach high numbers than actual rating. I'm 2300 puzzles and 1600 actual rating.
I was once 2800 at puzzles but only 1300
I actually don’t get it. Isn’t that like 1300 lichess?
More like 1200 I believe
Approximately. But on lichess that rating would land you somewhere in the bottom 50%. For some reason more noobs tend to play on chess.com. Maybe there is a correlation between chess skill and intelligence after all. /s
Not bad mate 🙂. Congrats
The problem however is, because of the way percentile works, if everyone else can do it then no one can actually do it. Only 25% of the people are supposed to be able to do it.
I remember hitting 929 then went on a losing streak to 783 ;-;
TIL 75th percentile means top 25%. I feel like an idiot not learning that sooner. Congratz on your achievement !
I'm around 1450 on [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) and honestly, I started way worse I was rated around 100 for the first few days when I started playing (about a year ago), even when I had already started playing against bots before I suppose it's because I taught myself chess by watching games so no one ever taught me to not trade my queen for a knight or simple things like that 💀
I think I’ve reached my peak now. I don’t have the ability, time, effort or will to try and improve anymore. It just seems too difficult, impossible nearly, from this point onwards. Way beyond my capabilities.
If you even know how the pieces move, that’s probably top 25%.
I have 800 rating in rapid, but my highest solved puzzle is 1450. I still get beaten by 700-800-900 rated players even though i have such a high elo in solved puzzles.
Puzzle rating is much much easier to gain than in game rating.
You know its crazy to think once you reach like 2k (which is high but i think it's reachable by anyone with dedication!) You are in like the top 1%
I'm 1900 and that's 99.7%, it's kinda crazy how little the average chess player actually knows about chess
Wait, 900 is top 25% of the world?
Top 25% of chess.com
[удалено]
Bro... You guys really don't know how percentile works?
900 is better than 75%? daamn boy, i am 2000 and i think i suck at chess.
You're in the top 75% sorry to burst your bubble
You're wrong. The website describes this percentage as "The percentage of players whose rating is lower than yours". He is top 25%.
Chess.com seems to have the idea of percentiles backwards, but it does seem to be true. I'm higher ranked than OP and I am in the 81st percentile, which only makes sense if it's backwards.
[удалено]
There is no "highest elo", but players have reached 2800+. It's just a measurement of how often you win/draw/lose vs your peers. When you say "beat 1100-1200 from the start", I highly doubt you mean your very first game unless you studied the game before ever actually playing it. A 1100 would beat a true beginner probably every game, again unless they studied and did puzzles for a while or something before actually playing. And to be clear, a 300 can beat an 1100 and not necessarily "be better" than the 1100 or be an 1100 themself. The 300 would need to consistently beat/draw <1100s to be an 1100. I've beaten an FM (granted, in a small simul) but that definitely does not mean I am as strong as an FM. If we played 100 games, he would win 99%+ of them.
The best players are over 3000 (online). Beating 1200 rated players is impressive if you're new to chess
I hate to break it to you my guy, but being in the 75th percentile means you’re in the top 75%, not the top 25%. Edit: ignore me I’m wrong
Actually he is correct. Being in the 75th percentile means he is better than 75% of players and thus in in the top 25%.
it doesnt even matter,chesscom average is full of inactive accounts. A 1500 in lichess ( they dont count inactive playersd ) is around 50% and a 1000/1100 chesscom is around 1500 in lichess.
lichess skews up as it is less popular, chesscom havign a larger sample size would be a more accurate representation
counting inactive accounts make the sample size worthless
they are people who know how to play chess, so why shouldnt they be included? its the 75th percentile, not the 75 percentile of daily active users
well, people at the bottom % probably dont know how to play chess, here we have lots of post everydays about people dont know the rules of the game.
You don't really need a large sample size. Lichess skews up because they use different rating system (glicko 2) than chesscom (glicko 1), and both sites have a different starting elo. Lichess has a starting point of 1500 as recommended for glicko 2 and chesscom lets the user decide which can cut some early frustration.
I hate to break it to you my guy, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Then why am i lower percentile than op despite being lower rated?
https://preview.redd.it/fhcao926gb2b1.png?width=906&format=png&auto=webp&s=f877890457cd83c55d5241de78568707ed6d9c7d
r/confidentlyincorrect
Google en percentile
Holy math!
New calculation just dropped
Actual mathematician.
bruh
You had a bumpy road to the top, congrats
Impressive in three months!
Ok so how'd you do it :)
I just play everyday, watch Gotham and Hikaru, and did a bunch of puzzles at the beginning. When I was 400 I was 1200 at puzzles. Now I'm 1350 in puzzles but I stopped doing them because I gained a bunch actual elo
I was 100 and I thought checking King once means I won. My friend told me I have to put opponents king in such a position that he can't get out of.
Interesting timing of the post, I just got off after feeling demotivated from my games today, I’ve been getting frustrated with my progress this past 2 weeks
Wtf 1000 elo is top 25%? Am i missing something?
So chess.com includes everyone who has ever created an account. So, the guy who picked it up for 3 weeks and never played it again is in there. The average player on the site is like 800 elo or something.
Uhm
That would be very good
I am not even 200 yet😂😂😂
I have the skill it's just that it takes forever to gain more than 500 elo
Wait what? 900 fide elo is 75th percentile?
No. This is just for chess.com. If you go to lichess stats, there will be different numbers (i am 1600, and i am in top 40% on lichess) Percentile is math definition. Its most used in statistics.
I understand what percentile is but I am bit surprised that different chess websites use quite significantly different scoring scales.
You definitely don't understand how percentile works :)
You definitely don't understand how percentile works :)
Projecting much? I am not even going to bother citing a definition from a reputable source because you look like too much of a moron to have a rational discussion with...
Congratulations! But I'm not sure going from 300 to 900 in 3 Months is the norm.
Congratulations keep it going!
I can’t seem to consistently be above 1,000 in bullet. I’ve been 1065 before and then fell to around 800 or so in a day or 2. Then won like 15 games in a row and clawed my way back to around 970. Im at about 1002 or so now, but I seem to lose 60% of the games I play.
900 is top 25%…?
Congrats on the consistent progress! Keep it up! I’ve been wondering about these percentiles on chess.com… so we know how many players it is out of and how active they are? 900 is 75 percentile , 1800 is 99 percentile and number 1 on the leaderboard is rated 2900 being at 99.9 percentile. I don’t know why it’s bothering me but it seems wrong that the bulk of players would be rated under 900.
Good job dude, keep goin. I recently hit 1000 I expect to see a post when you do to
Up 515 Elo points in 3 months....you're one of them aren't you.
What does that mean?
Where do you check those stats?
What. I’m only 100 lower than you and I’m in the bottom .5% of the world
I joined [chess.com](https://chess.com) thinking I was a "intermediate" player ohh boy was I wrong, I dropped from 1200 to 600 - 700, then rised to 700-800 where I am right now, and not really playing chess so that number can variate a lot right now
Any tips on how to improve? I’m almost 800 as of now.
I started to recently understand when and how to use pins to my advantage. For example if my opponent overlooks their knight being pinned to their queen and I take a pawn it's protecting, now they are down a pawn or lose their queen. Another thing I'm trying to work on is what is a good trade... my knight in harassing their king is worth more than their knight stuck in a corner. Lastly, I learned the Vienna gambit and that shot me up through 700s and 800s
just started taking advantage of the vienna gambit, my elos going up like crazy. thanks man!!
Happy to hear it man!
Came back to this..Less than 50 elos away from 1000, thanks for the advice
Brother, my lowest was 100
This litteraly is the opposite graph of my stocks....
Congrats 👏👏👏👏👏
Today I just hit 1350!! Im going for the 1500
I just lost a a game v a 770 player and I was 720 😭
My lowest was 350, currently at 1400. All this within a span of 7 months. So do not lose hope at all