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

Rapid chess improvement

Would you like to gain 400 rating points in 400 days? That is what Michael de la Maza did. And he wrote a book about his progress and the methods that got him there. Quite an appealing idea, and many players at the beginner and intermediate level will be enticed. I was. Are you? In 2001, Michael de la Maza wrote an article in Chess horizons called "400 points in 400 days" . In the article, he outlines the main components of his training program and gives a short account of his own progress. He managed to to get from about 1300 to 2000 in just two years, which is quite an accomplishment. His ideas were later elaborated upon and presented in the book  Rapid chess improvement. This book was published quite a few years ago, and can be difficult to find. But it has been republished in a new form, together with two other books in A chess course: from beginner to winner . If you decide you want to buy Rapid chess improvement , this three-in-one volume may be a good option. ...

Master of strategy

During the past two years, I’ve been working on improving my strategic/positional play. In this process, I have read a number of books, and two books that have long been on my reading list are the strategy books by Johan Hellsten. So when the Swedish chess federation requested reviewers for two of these books, I didn’t hesitate. I am happy that I was given the opportunity to review these books, and hope this review can be of help to you as a reader. If you like these reviews, please consider supporting my work. Visit my patreon page for details. Become a Patron! What can you expect from these books? Johan Hellsten has created a name for himself as one of the leading experts of chess strategy in modern times. His series of strategy books ( Mastering Opening Strategy , Mastering Chess Strategy and Mastering Endgame Strategy ) have received glowing reviews from many parts of the chess world. So it feels good to finally dig into these nuggets. His endgame book is still in my boo...

Winning chess strategies

Chess strategy is one of the most elusive and difficult parts of chess. Compared to the direct and transparent world of chess tactics, strategy can be confusing and opaque. At the patzer level, tactical strikes that gain material or lead to checkmate can be obvious (provided that one understands the tactic). However, in many cases, strong players claim that a move is obvious although it doesn't result in material gain or even a semblance of an attack. We, the patzers of the world, scratch our heads and wonder how on earth anyone can find such moves obvious. How can we take steps towards this deeper level of chess understanding? Picking up a basic strategy book is a good first step. And that's what I did here. 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? As a part of my ambition to deepen my understanding of chess strategy, I took on a mission of reading (and rev...

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 ...

Attack the king

One of the finest chess books ever written. Those are tall words from the back cover of this classic book. But The art of attack in chess is one of those books that keep popping up in lists of best chess books. It is highly regarded by many players and trainers, so the initial statement is probably not all wrong. This is a book that has been on my reading list for several years, but it has taken some time for me to actually pick it up. I've been curious about what the hype is all about, and now that I've finally found out for myself, I am ready to share that insight with you. So let's dive in! What can you expect from this book? Before we begin, let me just get one detail out of the way. One thing that struck me when I picked up the book is the title, which seems to be missing a "the". When reading about the book online, it is referred to both with and without "the". When I looked up the original book (this one is a revised edition, edited by Joh...