Skip to main content

What is average anyway?

The term 'average chess player' comes up every now and again. But what does that even mean? I am sure that every person who has ever used that kind of term will have different interpretations of what it means. So I figured I would take a look at some statistics from the official FIDE rating list.

The official rating lists can be downloaded from the FIDE website. One problem, however, is that there are almost 350,000 players on the rating list, which makes the files so big that they are rather difficult to handle. But with some spreadsheet magic, I was able to extract the information.

The diagram below shows the rating distribution of all players on the official rating list. The diagram simply shows the number of players with a certain rating. I have used a quite wide range (100 points) for each category, so the numbers will indicate the number of players with a rating between the indicated number and 100 points higher. For instance, the number at the peak (rating = 1700) is approximately 35,000. This means that about 35,000 players have a rating between 1700 and 1800.

Distribution of all FIDE rated players
One thing that strikes me as a bit odd is the lack of symmetry in the diagram. I had expected something that more closely resembles the symmetrical bell curve that represents a normal distribution. The deviation is more or less completely concentrated in below a 1400 rating. I am not really sure how to interpret this, but one possible explanation could be that there are a lot of beginners who have not yet reached their full potential, and therefore have a rating below 1400. Please feel free to provide your own interpretation of this result. (Edit: The results differs quite a bit from a similar analysis from a few years ago. Makes me think there could be something wrong with the data.)

The vertical lines in the diagram indicate the approximate rating levels that divide the population in quarters (quartiles). Approximately 25% of the players have ratings between each vertical line. The line in the middle thereby indicates the median, which means that 50% of the players have a lower rating, and 50% have a higher rating. This is quite close to the average rating, which indicates that the distribution is quite symmetrical after all. The following statistics describe the distribution quite well.

Average rating1670
Median rating1680
Variance (estimated)250

This means that an average player is someone with a rating just below 1700. And if you have a rating that is above 2000, you can proudly announce that you have a higher rating than about 75% of all players. That's quite an achievement. If you want to take a closer look at the grandmaster level (2500+), this is a quite exclusive group with a mere 0.3% of the players. The table below provides some more details.

Rating Number of players Percentage
1000174015%
1100 21902 6%
1200 23876 7%
1300 25723 7%
1400 28172 8%
1500 30958 9%
1600 33330 10%
1700 34483 10%
1800 33743 10%
1900 30758 9%
2000 28394 8%
2100 20109 6%
2200 12202 3%
2300 5564 2%
2400 2201 1%
2500 703 0.2%
2600 227 0.1%
2700 35 0.01%
2800 4 0.001%

This table illustrates clearly what an incredible achievement it really is to become a grandmaster. Despite the awesomeness that this implies, it is not always enough to make a living from chess. Furthermore, the chess celebreties that we see in top tournament (2700+) are only about 1 in 10,000. Talk about exclusive!

Another conclusion that I draw from this analysis is that it provides some kind of confirmation of my notion that an average clubplayer (patzer) is someone in the 1400-2000 rating range. Below 1400 is probably a good indication of the 'beginner' level, and 2000+ is elite. The master level is something else altogether.
I hope you enjoyed this little statistics exposé. At least, the next time someone talks about an 'average' player, you will know exactly what that means.

Comments

Popular reviews

Understanding middlegames

Have you ever found yourself unable to find a move in the middlegame? Of course you have. We all have. About ten years ago, this was a recurring problem for me, which led to a lot of frustration. My conclusion was that I needed to learn how understand middlegames. So what better way than to read a book with the title Understanding Chess Middlegames ? Sound like the perfect remedy, right? Ok, let's find out. If you like these reviews, please consider supporting my work. Visit my patreon page for details. Become a Patron!   What can you expect from this book? I first read this book when I was just starting to study chess seriously. I bought it after reading a recommendation in an online forum. I would say this was ten years ago, but the book came out 2011, so it couldn't have been before that. Anyhow, my playing strength was probably around 1200 (I was unrated at the time) and I was having trouble choosing moves in non-tactical positions. Basically, I was playing without ...

Estimating playing strength

Have you ever felt like your chess rating doesn't represent your actual playing strength? Sometimes we want to be able to estimate playing strength based on individual games rather than rating (which changes more slowly). During the past few months, I've been taking a number of online courses and learning python for data analysis. In one of the courses, the final project allowed me to choose my own dataset. So surprise surprise! I chose something chess related. (Not really surprised, are you?) When we play games online, getting a computer evaluation is just a few clicks away. And a commonly used statistic is the average centipawn loss, or simply the average deviation from the computer's best move. Many of us tend to think that centipawn loss (CPL) is a good estimate of playing strength. And, of course, it gives some indication, but it's far from a perfect predictor. Fellow chess/statistics blogger Patrick Coulombe has investigated the correlation between rating and CPL ...

Questions of modern chess theory

A Soviet classic - that's what it says on the front cover. And for good reason, I think. At the beginning of this year, I decided I would invest some time studying strategy books. I already had a number of them in my collection, and then I stumbled upon a thread in the facebook group ”chess book collectors”. The post contained some controversial claims about the book Question of modern chess theory , which was unfamiliar to me at the time. The post and the ensuing discussions piqued my interest, and I decided to check it out. After some research, I realized that this was a stepping stone for many other books, so I put it at the top of my reading list. I read it during the summer, but haven't got around to writing a review before now. So I actually had to read it again. Anywho, I am finally ready to share my thoughts with the world. Hope you enjoy it. If you like these reviews, please consider supporting my work. Visit my patreon page for details. Become a Patron! Wha...

Blindfold chess

Are you impressed by people who can play chess without seeing the board? For the uninitiated, this is a very impressive display of skill. But it is a skill that can be learned, and you don’t need to be a grandmaster to achieve it. The trick is to start small, with few pieces on the board - or in a diagram. In this review, I will discuss a book that can help you on the way to becoming a blindfold chess wiz.   If you like these reviews, please consider supporting my work. Visit my patreon page for details. Become a Patron! What can you expect from this book? A few years ago, my chess club arranged a small chess display in a local shopping centre. One of the things we did was having someone playing blindfolded against one of the spectators. People around the table were completely blown away by this, and many even asked if it was a trick. (It’s not!) Although blindfold chess seems amazing, even impossible, to some people, it is a skill that is very attainable. I would even c...

Lessons with a Grandmaster

If you had actual lessons with a grandmaster, would you be brave enough to publish the transcripts? Well, someone did. And that someone wrote about it in book form — three books, to be precise. In this review, I present my thoughts on the first book in the book series Lessons with a Grandmaster . If you like these reviews, please consider supporting my work. Visit my patreon page for details. Become a Patron!   What can you expect from this book? Lessons with a GM  is written in collaboration between Boris Gulko and Joel Sneed. Gulko is a grandmaster who emigrated from the Soviet Union in the 1980s. According to Wikipedia, he is the only player to win the Soviet as well as US Chess championships. Sneed is a professor of psychology at Queens College in New York as well as an amateur player.  In essence, this book is a game collection. There are 25 games in the book, all played by Gulko. There are some real heavyweights among his opponents, such as Kasparov, Karpov,...