9 ms·

I'm 70%-ile online chess player. That is average relative to players active on lichess in a given month. I'm better than most people (maybe top 10% even) that

by netcan 3y ago

I'm 70%-ile online chess player. That is average relative to players active on lichess in a given month. I'm better than most people (maybe top 10% even) that "play a little." I'm (I assume) well below average for adult tournament player. The pool matters. I think if I took lessons and dedicated a serious 100-200 hrs over some period, I might reach 85th in my online pool. 95%-ile is currently ELO 2075... just under where junior masters (CMs) seem to be on lichess. I suspect that extra 150 elo would be a difficult jump... but maybe doable for me and other average players. Chess is probably structured similar to athletics and other such pursuits. You can probably expect a similar distribution for weight lifting, for example. The average person can probably reach the level where everyone (including most over average people) is "actually trying" simply by being systematic. Where that point is varies, but weight lifting and chess have similar ranges of participation levels... like many hobbies. In any case... I think unlike chess, it's worth focusing on either strategy or technique... not tactics. Strategically defining the thing (chess is defined, but "software engineering" is malleable). Meaningfully selecting the pool. Actually deciding the value. Getting to top 10% rec chess player sounds fun. Getting to CM sounds arduous and pointless. There's not much value in being an entry level chess master... or power lifter. Techniques, like the habit of planning a training plan, creating a strategic plan with goals, timelines and such... that's a valuable asset... very transferable. The tactics... not so much. Meanwhile, you don't need great tactics to get results, and tactical advice is the easiest advice to get.

PaulHoule 3y ago
Chess is an unusually good example of there being a system in place to rate people. Master of, say, CSS is not like that.
psunavy03 3y ago
Software engineering, much as some people don't like to hear it, is also a team sport unlike weightlifting or chess. Give me a 99th percentile team over a mythical 10x dev every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
jeremyjh 3y ago
Chess has a funny distribution because there are different populations to consider. I'd guess a chess.com 1200 is better than 95% of all people who know the rules and have played a game. Yet to reach the 95% of any tournament rating pool is far more difficult. It took me nearly three years just to get to 1450 USCF, which is about 83% nationally. In that time I've done more than 50,000 tactics, played more than 15,000 total games (mostly online blitz and rapid) and at least 300 rated tournament games at a slow time control (this includes online games played at 45+45, only half that number are OTB). I've analyzed those tournament games, most of them with a coach. I've played through annotated game collections. I attend lectures at the club from an FM, and watch dozens of Youtube videos every week from streamers and instructors. I drill openings and endgames etc etc. I have a lifetime goal just to reach 1800, which is about 95% I believe. Its reasonable to expect that to take at least 5 years, and also reasonable to think I will never achieve it. This is what chess improvement looks like when you start in your 40s. Any kid who takes the game seriously can get to 1800, a lot of them will do it in just a couple of years.
qsort 3y ago
Lichess is an incredible project and a true gem of open source, but an accurate source of ELO rating it is not. As we speak I am rated 2227. I am unspeakably horrendous at chess. Online chess is more like a video game; my competitive mindset and nerdy minimax tendencies are single-handedly carrying me.
- jeremyjh 3y ago
  It has a very accurate rating system, but "accuracy" does not mean "matches FIDE". Ratings can only be compared within the same pool of players, and Lichess is quite good at matching you with people of comparable skill, which is the only purpose of a rating system.
- netcan 3y ago
  I meant that 2100 on lichess is about where tournament CMs tend to be... roughly. It happens to converge about there, but that's coincidence. Online is a different game, sure. But relative strength is not that variable between games.

by netcan 3y ago

PaulHoule 3y ago

Chess is an unusually good example of there being a system in place to rate people. Master of, say, CSS is not like that.

psunavy03 3y ago

Software engineering, much as some people don't like to hear it, is also a team sport unlike weightlifting or chess. Give me a 99th percentile team over a mythical 10x dev every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

jeremyjh 3y ago

Chess has a funny distribution because there are different populations to consider. I'd guess a chess.com 1200 is better than 95% of all people who know the rules and have played a game. Yet to reach the 95% of any tournament rating pool is far more difficult. It took me nearly three years just to get to 1450 USCF, which is about 83% nationally. In that time I've done more than 50,000 tactics, played more than 15,000 total games (mostly online blitz and rapid) and at least 300 rated tournament games at a slow time control (this includes online games played at 45+45, only half that number are OTB). I've analyzed those tournament games, most of them with a coach. I've played through annotated game collections. I attend lectures at the club from an FM, and watch dozens of Youtube videos every week from streamers and instructors. I drill openings and endgames etc etc. I have a lifetime goal just to reach 1800, which is about 95% I believe. Its reasonable to expect that to take at least 5 years, and also reasonable to think I will never achieve it. This is what chess improvement looks like when you start in your 40s. Any kid who takes the game seriously can get to 1800, a lot of them will do it in just a couple of years.

qsort 3y ago

Lichess is an incredible project and a true gem of open source, but an accurate source of ELO rating it is not. As we speak I am rated 2227. I am unspeakably horrendous at chess. Online chess is more like a video game; my competitive mindset and nerdy minimax tendencies are single-handedly carrying me.

jeremyjh 3y ago
It has a very accurate rating system, but "accuracy" does not mean "matches FIDE". Ratings can only be compared within the same pool of players, and Lichess is quite good at matching you with people of comparable skill, which is the only purpose of a rating system.
netcan 3y ago
I meant that 2100 on lichess is about where tournament CMs tend to be... roughly. It happens to converge about there, but that's coincidence. Online is a different game, sure. But relative strength is not that variable between games.