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

Stop and reassess!

In my very first post on this blog, I reviewed The Amateur's Mind by Jeremy Silman. That was my first step to understand chess strategy. And I actually bought another one of Silman's book at the same time, but for some reason, it took me more than ten years to read. I finally decided to go through it and now I am ready to share my thoughts with you. (It feels like I've written this before.) 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? Before writing this review, I had a few candidates. I am always reading several books in parallel, and I have a number that I'm about to finish. So I asked the Twitter community for input on which book they would like me to review as number 50. And this came out on top. So far I have reviewed 49 books on #patzersreview . Which one should be number 50? My candidates are: - Silman: Reassess your chess workbook - Nunn: Solving in...

Chess tactics for champions

Chess is 99% tactics. At least, that’s what some people say. Whether that is correct or not does not really matter, because either way you slice it, tactics is a central aspect of chess. Especially at the patzer level, games are often decided by a missed tactic. Working through a tactics book can extend your chess vocabulary and can be great for establishing and reinforcing patterns until they become a part of your chess intuition. So for a chess player, tactics training is like going to the gym. 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 many readers probably know, Susan Polgar was born in Hungary and is currently living in the USA. Susan and her younger sisters Judit and Zsofia were all famously trained by their father László Polgár as an educational experiment as kids to become chess prodigies. And, the experiment was a success. Susan is the former women’s world ch...

Learn chess tactics

Where should you turn for tactics training? This is a frequently occuring question, not only from beginners, but also from intermediate players. Which books are suitable for your specific level, and which ones should you get? In this review, I take on a book that I suggest you do get - at least if you're at or near the beginning of your chess development. This was actually my first tactics book back in the day, and I recently reread it in order to give a proper review. I remember that I liked it the first time around and that my tactical skills improved. Although rereading it didn't contribute all that much to my learning, I still have a good impression of it. Please read on for more details. 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? Learn Chess Tactics is written by the one and only John Nunn, and (as the name implies) it is a tactics book. I would go as f...

My system should be your system?

One of the greates classics of chess literature. That's at least what it says on the cover. But let's not judge a book by the cover. Instead, we could listen to what others have said about this book. In his review of My system , John Watson writes: "We no longer consider many classics to be essential to a chess education, not since the Internet; but if there’s an exception, Nimzowitch’s work is it". These are big words from a big man. Watson is an authority of chess theory, so his evaluation should not be taken too lightly. Although My system has frequently been mentioned among the greatest books of all time, and has been recommended by many players , it has also been the subject of controversy. Of course, when the book was first published (almost 100 years ago), many ideas in the book challenged many of the established principles of chess theory at the time, and other authorities dismissed the ideas. But also to this day, many people are unimpressed with the b...

Dynamize your chess

Some books are worth waiting for, and this one is exceptional in terms of waiting. When I ordered the book, it took over 6 months before it was delivered. When I finally got around to reading it, I realized that I should probably read more basic books on chess strategy in order to get more context on this one. So I put it away for a while. The result is that it has taken almost two years from when I ordered the book until this review was done. Is it worth the wait? Read on to 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? In How to study chess on your own , Davorin Kuljasevic recommends that you should "dynamize" your tactical training. Dynamic chess strategy  is a good book to get you started on that track. And it is also one of the books that Kuljasevic references repeatedly throughout his book. But what exactly does it mean? Well, that's one of the ma...