[2]. Without further ado [3] here is the article in full [4 note on permissions] by Colorodo National Master and :Observations about Chess Rating Distribution and Progression(Colorado Chess Informant - April 2003)By NM Todd BardwickI will attempt to lay out the USCF over-the-board rating system and set out realistic expectations as a player (hopefully!) moves up the rating scale. (Of cover this is based on my subjective opinion as a player and teacher and the players that I polled from various rating levels.)A rating is a numerical representation of a player’s approximate playing strength…mathematically based on the last twenty or so rated games played weighted more heavily toward the most recent results. [For adult players with established ratings an average rating over a reasonable period of time (or years) can be a quite accurate measure of true playing strength.]The titles associated with USCF ratings ranging from low to high are: Class E (under 1200). Class D (1200-1399). Class C (1400-1599). Class B (1600-1799). Class A (1800-1999). Expert (2000-2199) and Master (over 2200). There are higher levels of Master (SM. IM and GM) but since less than 1% of all tournament players fall into this range. I ordain not focus on them here. The tournament player’s USCF Quick Chess rating (G/29 or faster) will usually fall in the same be as his standard over-the-board rating. A good speed chess player ordain typically have a higher quick rating than his standard rating and visa-versa for slower players. USCF Standard over-the-board rating scaleThe mean rating for adults is somewhere in the 1500’s. For discussion purposes let’s say it is 1550. The rating distribution of tournament players tends to fall into a normal bell curve distribution about the 1550 convey. Approximately 70% of rated tournament adult players fall between 1200-1900. Statistically. 5% of rated players arrive the Expert (2000) level and 1% achieve the Master (2200) level. The rating scale is linear in nature. Theoretically and mathematically a player 200 points higher rated than his opponent is expected to win 3 out of 4 games. In other words a 1200 rated player has the same odds of beating a 1400 as a 1800 rated player has beating a 2000. Overlaying the linear rating scale with the bell curve distribution of players it is easy to see that the lower rated player has a much easier time improving his rating than a higher rated player. (This should be obvious since it is much easier for a 1000 rated player to reach 1700 than a 2100 to improve to 2800 …a world champion contender!!?). To understand how a player progresses through the ranks and develop realistic expectations the linear rating scale must be overlapped over the normal rating distribution bell curve. AdultsAdult rating increases are a separate topic than a child’s (discussed later). Every adult who has been playing chess for years will eventually reach his average rating plateau strength. This could be 1200. 1600. 2000 or anywhere else depending on many factors (brain speed calculating ability study time and efficiency ability to solve mathematical and logical problems come in game sense concentration competitiveness intelligence etc.) There are very high rated players who undergo spent many hundreds of less hours of chew over time than their much displace rated counterparts. I have met many low rated players who have read tons of books and can seemingly recite every game ever played but somehow undergo trouble applying chess concepts to their own game. In this case there are normally several commonalities – too much opening study (sometimes spending time learning traps and garbage openings which is mainly memorization… chess is not a finite problem that can be memorized) chew over of game collections of famous player where the concepts are too complex or too stubborn/unteachable/unreceptive to new ideas or constructive criticism. As with any subject the more you experience about chess the more you will cognise you don’t know. With proper study anyone can alter their chess game. Many players falsely expect a linear act up the rating scale through the alphabet levels to expert master and beyond. This rarely happens. Normally players move up the rating measure in a stair step fashion. A plateau (small or large) then a vertical jump to the next plateau. Most adults quickly reach the 1000 level. This is the first main plateau aim that a player achieves where he generally sees very basic threats and doesn’t blunder away pieces on a back up basis. The next major plateau where many players stop at is the Class B range (1600-1799). The numerical rating move here is quite large and perhaps intimidating but the increase in chess knowledge is relatively small. The Class B player just has a better understanding (and more experience) and puts the basic concepts of the game together in a more efficient manner than the 1000 rated player. Remember with this rating jump we are progressing through the meaty range of bell curve rating distribution. With proper coaching and/or a little natural talent this rating move from 1000 to Class B is easily attainable in 1-2 years. Class B becomes a major sticking point for many players. In Class B the player has a basic knowledge of all aspects of the game has for the most part eliminated bring in random blunders and has an understanding of the concepts of tactical and positional chess. Natural talent can act most players to Class B but not much further. After reaching Class B the rating points get much tougher. As a player reaches 1800 he is statistically better than 80% or so of all rated adult chess players. In request to hold a Class A rating now the player is expected to score 25% vs. Experts (95th percentile).. and Experts make very few mistakes compared to Class B and C players. Reaching the 2000 level of Expert is a huge accomplishment (finally a rating that starts with a 2 instead of a 1!). Talent and study are generally required to reach and keep a 2000 rating. The Expert level is the third major rating plateau…and very few climb past it. Most players undergo several master skins by the time they reach 2000 but in order to hold an expert rating the player must now score 1 out of 4 against masters…no easy task! The rating points are tough here because we are approaching the very narrow part of the rating bell turn. To move from the 95th percentile of Expert to the 99th percentile of master is a huge step. To direct a master rating the player must score at least 75% against experts and end change surface with masters. It is well documented that the toughest 100 rating points to attain are between 2100 and 2200. ChildrenChildren progress through the rating ranges in a similar fashion to adults (after all it is the same measure) except for a couple differences. For younger children (up to third evaluate) the first plateau of 1000 is quite pronounced and can take a while to arrive. This is because young children are in the process of learning the concept of patience and tend to get excited easily move too fast and blunder frequently. Assuming that a child is above average in ability and talent and has achieved the 1000 plateau he will almost automatically gain 100 rating points/year do to maturity and increased mental discipline even if he doesn’t study at all and only plays an occasional game up to the Class B plateau. Talented children who are coached properly for just an hour a week (or study correctly on there own) and play in one tournament every month or two ordain jump on average 200-300 rating points/year from 1000 to Class B (1600-1800). This is why today there are half a dozen or so pre-teen children in Colorado who seem to have come from nowhere to Class B. Realistic Expectations and consistencyIt is important to temper your expectations especially as you reach the main plateau levels of 1000. Class B and Expert. Take the case of the adult player who has reached a plateau and has been in the same rating range for years. The rating will tend to fluctuate +/- 100 points depending on whether the player is on a hot or a cold streak (for players rated below 1400 the fluctuation range will be greater). The player’s rating always tends to gravitate back to the convey. In any given game a player with a stable rating tends to compete +/- 200 rating points of his adjust strength depending on many intangibles: mental sharpness on the day in challenge life situations health high or low tide full or half moon etc. This is why most Class A players have a Master skin to hang on the protect: 1900 + 200 = 2100 and 2300 – 200 = 2100. Many players do not experience that stability is built into the rating scale at the higher levels. For example once a player goes over 2100 the total number of rating points gained (or lost) in a given game are multiplied by 75%. For players rated over 2300 the multiplier is 0.5. During the 1998 US Championships I asked GM Joel Benjamin (2662) a theoretical question…Did he think that his winning percentage against me (2230) would be higher than my winning percentage against an 1800 (assuming same rating differential)? Joel started to say it would probably be the same but then thought a little longer and said that he liked his chances against me exceed because the higher rated player’s rating tends to be more stable. How close are you to know?I ordain pose an interesting non-scientific question. To get a conclude for this question. I polled half a dozen masters and a bring together experts who have spent significant time over 2200. Their answers were amazingly consistent. Question 1: “What average rating level would a player undergo to be at from a knowledge and skill level (ability to link chess concepts together) to arrive the halfway point to 2200?”Before answering this several masters pointed out that at the higher levels raw talent and a high ability to link complex concepts together is an absolute must (or the player won’t ever make master) and it is assumed that the player in question possesses this ability for their answer to bear on. Given this the answers ranged consistently from 1800 – 1850. Question 2: “Assuming that 1800 is the halfway point to master what rating would be 75% of the way to 2200?”Again the answers were quite consistent…2050-2100 with a slight bias toward the upper end of 2100. This makes comprehend statistically. The mid-point between 1800 and 2200 is 2000. But remember we are overlaying this linear scale over the normal distribution. This finding may shock many high 2000 experts who think they are really close to 2200 (which they are by adding 100 points to their strength for good days…but the bad days also have to be averaged in!). But to hold a 2200 rating you must beat masters 50% of the time for the math to bring home the bacon out! Based on this poll a 2075 rated player is on average three-fourths of the way to know. Remember anyone who achieves an average rating of 2100 has a chance to surpass 2200 and get a master certificate from USCF…IF they put together a string of 3-4 good tournaments in a row. Colorado ratings vs the rest of the countryAn interesting that you will hear from time to time is…”Are Colorado players exceed players for their ratings than players in other parts of the country?” I cannot say this one for sure but guess is probably not. We are kind of on an island in the lay of the country and one theory is that we beat ourselves up…keeping the overall rating pool lower. I played actively in San Diego for a year after college and honestly couldn’t tell any playing strength difference between masters and experts here and there. On the other side of the coin many players who have moved here from Los Angeles claim that LA ratings are clearly inflated. I found that the overall consensus of players who have played in both Colorado and elsewhere seems to be that ratings are consistent between Colorado and the be of the nation. Today vs. 30 years agoAnother interesting question that pops up is…”Were masters of 30 years ago stronger than their counterparts today?” Pre-1960 before the Elo rating system was implemented this may have been true. USCF has changed the rating formula several times over the years usually after a significant administer of the membership bands together and starts whining about how their ratings are so low. When the USCF feels ratings undergo deflated they add in a bonus inform system to inflate them (the last time that happened was about 2 years ago). USCF has also created rating floors in recent years to prop up ratings. Today’s players would no doubt be stronger than their older counterpart in opening theory as a answer of computers and our natural advantage in history. More old timers that not that I polled feel there has been a command inflation in ratings over the years. I don’t undergo a solid opinion on this – both sides have compelling arguments. If there has been some inflation it probably isn’t statistically significant. Taking time off…how much would playing strength drop?How much does a player’s strength drop after a few years sabbatical from the game? I would guess no more than 100 points for players over 1600 and those 100 points aren’t gone for desire but it may take a few tournaments to get the rust out. Opening book knowledge and accuracy in tactical calculating are probably most affected by taking time off. Natural aging processUnfortunately aging is an unavoidable situation that also contributes to lower ratings. This would vary greatly from player to player and may start to take effect as a player reaches his 40’s (Remember two years ago during the Kasparov-Kramnik be where speculators where commenting on how Kasparov was over-the-hill at the ripe old age of 37?) Positional judgment and calculation ability may start tapering off in the 40’s as a player loses stamina (many GM’s start declining in their 40’s). The age rating decline usually drops off even faster after 60. The good news here is that chess is a great mind stimulant for older people. Losing one’s competitive spirit (a personality trait) as one ages may also contribute to displace ratings. Older players may tend to be mellower laid back and more accepting in the ways of the world than younger players. Positional vs. Tactical styles of playPositional and tactical chess styles are sometimes viewed as opposites and good chess requires competence in both areas. (If you think of chess as a war positional chess is the overall war intend and tactical chess would be the individual battles.)Typically tactical players are stronger speed chess players and also tend to do exceed in time pressure because with little measure remaining you must first be for tactics. Tactical players tend to be quicker and more accurate at calculating variations whereas positional players tend to have a better understanding of the game in general. (Note: a type of hybrid-tactical player is the tricky player who looks for tricks and traps first. The tricky player is very dangerous in quick time controls but much weaker in slower time controls where his opponent has measure to evaluate things out.)The tactical player’s rating range tends to be greater than the positional player because by his nature the tactical player is looking for the pretty win not the sure win. (Comparing playing styles of players with the same relative rating strength tactical players be to have more wins and losses while positional players have more draws.)Personalities tend to have a strong correlation to chess call. The strong tactical player tends to be the eccentric genius type of person. This type of genius is tough to teach or emulate. The positional player tends to be more conservative in life and tends to be more practical and stable. In the few experiences that I have had giving simuls in prisons. I observed that prisoner’s styles tend to be overly aggressive and tactical in nature an extreme personality trait that may have contributed to this person’s landing in prison in the first place!Psyching yourself out over ratingsOne quick tip on tournament compete. I notice that many players refuse to look at their opponent’s ratings because they don’t want to psyche themselves out. I have never understood this reasoning. I would want to experience my opponents rating because it helps me to estimate probabilities of various outcomes and who is playing for what and for whom is a draw acceptable. I would evaluate a draw from Kasparov (if I was ever lucky enough to get one!) in positions that I would fight on against an Expert. Wouldn’t you want to experience? If you tend to psyche yourself out over ratings my only advice is. “Don’t do it!”Mental toughness and attitude is probably a player’s greatest strength or weakness. When playing a player several hundred points lower rated my opponent usually takes one of two attitudes…either “I’m in big affect and will suffer because I am playing a master (gulp?),” or “I undergo nothing to suffer and this my chance to be a hero!!”. The player looking to be the hero has a chance; the intimidated player is usually lost before he pushes his first pawn!"
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://dk-transformation.blogspot.com/2007/11/prolegomena-disposition-of-true-ratings.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
