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

Judgement and planning

Some books "fly under the radar" and do not get the same attention as the evergreen classics. But sometimes, there is gold in old mines. And I found a little golden nugget while shopping for used books. A book written for amateurs, by (arguably) the best amateur of all time; former world champion Max Euwe. Sounds promising, right? 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? In my previous review of Chess Fundamentals , said that few world champions have written books for beginners and intermediate players. Capablanca is, of course, one exception. And another is Max Euwe. Euwe is not the most well-known world champion. He was in his prime in the 1930s and 1940s, most notably in 1935 when he dethroned none other than the great Alexander Alekhine. Although many have suggested that Alekhine only lost because of heavy use of alcohol, beating him is no small feat (rega...

Nunn’s secrets

Let me tell you a secret. There is no such thing as 'the best chess books'. It all depends on the preferences and expectations of the reader and of course the work s/he puts in when working with the book. So just because someone else claims that a certain book belongs in the 'best books of all time' category, it does not necessarily mean that it is a book that you will appreciate. This little intro may have given away the content of this review, but that's ok. Secrets of practical chess is an example of a book that has gotten a lot of praise on a more than one occasion. So let's dig in and see what the fuss is all about. What can you expect from this book? Secrets of practical chess has seemingly been well received in the chess world. Overall, the opinions are very positive. John Watson gave it a very positive review , and Jacob Aagaard has listed it among the top 10 books of the 20th century . It is also mentioned in another list of 'best' books ....

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 ...

1001 Checkmates

Modern Chess is too much concerned with things like Pawn structure. Forget it, Checkmate ends the game. This statement by Nigel Short may trigger different reactions in the chess experts of the world. Some may argue that it oversimplifies the game, since it is not possible to play for checkmate in all positions. On the other hand, it quite correctly pinpoints a major problem for beginning players in that they simply don't know how to end the game. I've seen this in our kids classes at my local club. The kids can be up a ton of material, but they don't know how to checkmate their opponent. A common piece of advice served to beginners is "do a lot of tactics". And I agree that this is a good idea. But I think we should expand on that advice and suggest that beginners (and stronger players) "do a lot of checkmates". And what better way to do this than go through a checkmate puzzle book? If you like these reviews, please consider supporting my work. Visi...