FIDE 1550 is the average club player. A standard deviation is 200 points.
So we have again a discussion, what starting means.
It is reasonable to look at it from the skills. Then I would put the starting point in Elo around 1200, when according to my experience kids now what the center and development is and nearly know the rules. There are still difficulities with en passant and castling over attacked squares.
It is reasonable too to look at it from the from the point some starts serious work scheduled. This is more difficult and my first proposal is 1950, open to discussion. 1950 is a point many people can get with some basic tactic training without systematic study of endings or strategy. The got some knowledge here and there, play mostly blitz, interrupt chess if there's something else of interest. I say first proposal because I know this is open to discussion and I'm interested in arguments pro and contra.
Well Keep in mind
@jupp53 it wasn't till 2000 that FIDE even recognized below 2000 players. So I don't even really trust FIDE as a point of reference for strength. I would trust the national federations or online establishments more.
It's not about trusting FIDE. The Elo-rating is a well established formula with scientific background. Distrust in a corrupted organisation should not lead to distrust in a discussion about measurement imo.
#280
Interesting point. It’s true, starting point is different for everyone. I taught a total adult beginner the rules, and elementary ideas, and she was 600-800 here first few days/weeks. With minimal tactical training and some general opening principles and minimal experience she was 1000 very quickly. But this adult was very fast, smart, and super talented with all intellectual tasks. So, I would guess other adults learn slower and can’t get to 1000 so quickly.
Yet when we played as kids in Russia, since no video games and everyone knows the rules and some elementary strategy and tactics (kinda like Brazilian kids playing soccer) the level was much higher right off the start. It was assumed that you should instantly spot simple tactics and grasp and follow principles such as fast development, early castling, and aggression, attacking your opponent, especially attack the f7 square! LOL. Someone like that adult beginner I mentioned earlier would be considered braindead in Russia. During the game observers and opponent would ridicule her for missing obvious tactical shots, delaying development etc. It was assumed you as chess beginner would still have some skill and common sense. I played a few casual games as a kid in Soviet Union, got absolutely smashed by people who never took any lessons or read any books and never played a rated game in their life. Chess was part of the culture, Kasparov - Karpov was shown on TV live. The whole country watched, everyone followed the GM commentary.
@jupp53 I like the idea of defining 'beginner' in terms of a set of skills; 'nearly knows the rules' sounds about right from what I have seen in kids tournaments. In terms of techniques, I might put beginner as up to knowing how to mate with K+R vs K, or maybe up to knowing how to win/draw with K+P vs K (although this is a bit harder). I would agree this is going up to about ELO 1200 (or equivalent in any national system; for ECF this would be about 50).
To me a difficulty about establishing where serious work starts is that (a) its different for different players (b) most players start as juniors, where learning is real but not consciously structured - to me this is like language learning. Most juniors end up quite proficient at playing the Italian Game without being formally taught it as opening theory.
I would tend to put your latter level as the point where someone can play lines of an opening that is *not* 1. e4 e5 in a thematically correct way for about 8-10 moves - the moves don't have to be theoretically perfect, but thematically standard. To me this is typically about ELO 1500 (ECF 100).
Piscatorox
Thank you for responding and your way too generous assessment of my humble chess ability. On the question of what is a beginner, would you say a typical Russian school boy is a chess beginner? This would be a typical exposure to chess as I remember it growing up in Soviet Union:
Karpov - Kasparov is on TV live, everyone is watching and discussing what each player should or will do next. Everyone talks about each game at parties and dinner. If you play in school with your friends or with your dad you would be taught day 1 to watch tactics, develop quickly, castle early etc. Basically some strategy and tactics were assumed to be part of the rules that everyone should know and follow so that you play the game properly. Chess was part of the culture. Would such a school boy be considered a beginner? Notice he never played a rated game or took lessons or read a book.
What or whom do we call a beginner is very difficult, even if we start from scratch. There is some transfer in learning if the domains resemble enough. A go dan player will learn chess probably faster than someone who never played a strategic board game in his live. A kid observing chess players in his family has learned some useful behavior by imitation before knowing the first rule.
@piscatorox is reasonable with his ideas imo, even if I stick still to my concept without selling it as "truth". Maybe this discussion leads to having a better defined personal point of view, so we can understand each other better. This leads to the question what is useful to have more fun in getting better. I rely on having fun because else noone will do something for it.
All one can really be concerned with, as an adult improver, irrespective of whether having learned the rules of the game and basic moves earlier or later in life is this: how can I improve in the most efficient manner possible, considering my personal circumstances?
What level of ability one can aspire to remains extremely theoretical, even in the best of cases. Life is replete with examples of people who showed great promise in a given field of endeavour as children and who, for various reasons, did not fulfil that very real potential.
Irrespective of what neuro-science has to say about age-related learning potential, one thing is abundantly clear: a few lucky children have tremendous advantages over adults in that - given the right circumstances - they can devote themselves as fully as possible to a given activity for years on end whitout the burdens and obligations associated to being an average adult. Despite this very profound advantage, only a minuscule amount of those who play and love the game will ever achieve master-level. Even when chess is part of the social fabric of a nation as may be the case for the "average Russian school boy", said person will never become a master, or even close to it.
So, even if a total beginner (only rules and how to move pieces and pawns) full-grown adult shows a real gift for the game and has the material and personal circumstances necessary to devote himself fully to the study of this game, developing that potential to its fullest will be a long-shot because life has a way of interfering with the best laid plans. Even if the goal should - improbably - be reached, such a person will always be an exception, not the rule. Anecdotal evidence rarely serves us when the goal is to frame useful generalisations that can help us move forward in life. Same with improving as an adult chess player.
All other things being equal, for every person whose star shines brightly, there are countless others who did not make it because things just weren't as perfectly aligned as in the case of the person we use as an "example" of what is possible. This tendency obfuscates the very real fact that luck and happenstance contribute greatly to how each of us ends up in life. A single meeting or event can change the course of a life, for the better or the worse.
All one can really do is set realistic goals, devise means and methods to achieve them in the most efficient manner possible, implement that plan with persistence and daily dedication, always open to tweaking or course-correcting along the way, and surround oneself with people who believe in you and can help you along the way. Progress, whether personal or professional rarely happens in isolation. It is also often accelerated by the presence of a mentor or enlightened friend or acquaintance, just better enough to challenge one's views and ability by shining a light to show the road to be travelled in the next few steps forward. Once your immediate goal is reached, you set another realistic one and "rinse and repeat".
The rest is, ultimately, pure speculation and conjecture. An entertaining use of time somewhat equivalent to chit-chatting around the office water cooler.
@Sarg0n BTW your favourite player mihai suba started with 18 years old. With 20 he started took serious the chess He got +2500 elo points and he drew with many strongs players So yes, is possible
@piscatorox and others, when I pointed out John K. Shaw, suddenly 1700 became almost unachievable. He was 1700 at 19 and this somehow proves the point of practical innability for a late starter to become a titled player.
On this I can point out the example of "Hanging pawns" guy (Stjepan Tomic,
www.patreon.com/hangingpawns) who played his first rated tournament at 26 (in 2016) and now he has rating of 1911 FIDE (
ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=14567083).
So how does that fit into theory regarding John K. Shaw, according to which it's no big deal to be 1700 at 19 and later became a GM?
