I'm a chess player and so I enjoy logical argument.
I have to disagree with TheDudeAbides about 1900 being legit.
Why?
If 95% of the world was between the ages of 1-3 years old...
And 1% of the world was over 50...
It really wouldn't mean much for a 3 year old to make a "top 10%" argument.
It's simply insignificant.
The difference between 1600 and 1900 is almost non-existent.
The difference between 1900 and 2100 is almost non-existent.
The point is, there is a brick wall between lower-rated players (<2200 FIDE/<2300 Lichess ), and NM/IM/GM play.
Titled play is a completely different class.
-
Yes, "better than 90%", but that's just not a significant representation.
I think that Sarg0n's suggestion makes a lot of sense.
Sure, I can no longer drool over my "top 98.9%" bla bla bla...
...but I put no stock in that number anyway. I know the truth about myself.
And the truth is:
"Hi. My name is Onyx, and I'm a lower-rated chess player."
"Hello Onyx." - 99.75% of the chess world.
"Top 98.9%" is what I tell people who know nothing about chess.
They say, "Whoa."
I say, "It's not really that big of a deal."
They think I'm just being humble.
But I know that I'm full of crap.
"How can you say that! '98.9%' is 98.9%!"
Yes...but like I said...
3 year olds can't talk about being grown...much less elderly.
I consider myself in the <2200 class. No different than a 1500 or 1700.
Don't get me wrong, LB for LB I'm sure that I can teach a 1500 to become a 1600 faster/better than the rest...but at the end of the day...we're still in the same class.
If/when I earn a +2000 official FIDE rating, I'll start considering ideas of "pride in accomplishment".
Until then, I'm stuck with a pride in a vast bredth of chess knowledge, chess psychology, and unlimited enjoyment with a lifetime hobby.
I have to disagree with TheDudeAbides about 1900 being legit.
Why?
If 95% of the world was between the ages of 1-3 years old...
And 1% of the world was over 50...
It really wouldn't mean much for a 3 year old to make a "top 10%" argument.
It's simply insignificant.
The difference between 1600 and 1900 is almost non-existent.
The difference between 1900 and 2100 is almost non-existent.
The point is, there is a brick wall between lower-rated players (<2200 FIDE/<2300 Lichess ), and NM/IM/GM play.
Titled play is a completely different class.
-
Yes, "better than 90%", but that's just not a significant representation.
I think that Sarg0n's suggestion makes a lot of sense.
Sure, I can no longer drool over my "top 98.9%" bla bla bla...
...but I put no stock in that number anyway. I know the truth about myself.
And the truth is:
"Hi. My name is Onyx, and I'm a lower-rated chess player."
"Hello Onyx." - 99.75% of the chess world.
"Top 98.9%" is what I tell people who know nothing about chess.
They say, "Whoa."
I say, "It's not really that big of a deal."
They think I'm just being humble.
But I know that I'm full of crap.
"How can you say that! '98.9%' is 98.9%!"
Yes...but like I said...
3 year olds can't talk about being grown...much less elderly.
I consider myself in the <2200 class. No different than a 1500 or 1700.
Don't get me wrong, LB for LB I'm sure that I can teach a 1500 to become a 1600 faster/better than the rest...but at the end of the day...we're still in the same class.
If/when I earn a +2000 official FIDE rating, I'll start considering ideas of "pride in accomplishment".
Until then, I'm stuck with a pride in a vast bredth of chess knowledge, chess psychology, and unlimited enjoyment with a lifetime hobby.