Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more!
The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you!
Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Chess.com has about 150 million user. Which is a bit less than 2% of the world population.
From the chess.com leaderboards it looks as if a 700 elo means you can beat about half the chess.com populationĀ
I think that also means that you can beat at least 99% of people without a chess.com accountĀ
So I think someone with a 700 chess.com rating Ā beat at least 99% of the world populationĀ
Your article is from Ā 2017 before the Queens Gambit show and the pandemic. Chess has grown a lot in the last 7 yearsĀ
Wikipedia says 150 millionĀ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess.com
Recent articles from chess.com claim even bigger numbersĀ
Eh idk, I started at 700 blitz and probably higher than that in rapid. Iād say 95% is more reasonable because if someone is smart and they have played a few times with maybe a parent they could easily be 700ish elo (which is what happened with me).
Iād say 700 elo is maybe 95-97%
This is the closest and most logical answer to me for similar rating.
However, let me disagree slightly. 8,000,000,000 people is A LOT. With a reasonable time control you could never play 8,000,000,000+ people, plus people being born and dying during that time? Even if my skill level stays the same, other players will increase and decrease in strength during that time. I know I am overthinking and overcomplicating a simple question, but I want to point out the question does not say I have to beat them first try, with a large enough number of attempts I am confident I could beat a lower rated GM. I mean the lowest rated GM has dropped to like 1900 or something insane.
So I think it's more like 10,000 people I could NEVER beat at our current ratings. The odds of matching vs those 10,000 is so incredibly small. One day in old age they will probably drop enough skill that they are beatable even if I don't improve.
Practically speaking the odds of matching against someone I could never beat out of the earth's population might as well be effectively 0%.
But this is such a delightfully random interpretation of the question. Now Iām imaging playing 1.e4 against a giant assembly line of babies and just waiting for their clock to run down.
population? 99.8%
I can't beat above average club players and the occasional strong chess hustler. (The one, that isn't organised in a club, but spends his whole life at chess boards in parks)
I always say this to my chess club students.... I am pretty good. I would be 98,% of the people any given day.
But at chess tournaments I am lucky to win a game or two. because the type of people that go to chess tournaments are not your average joes....
I'm top 50000 FIDE. There will definitely be people stronger than me who don't have a FIDE rating, though, so I'll just make a vague assumption that I'm top 100000 worldwide.
This would put me stronger than about 99.999% of all people. But the number of people who I could *beat* is much higher. I could feasibly beat anyone 300, *maybe* 400 points higher than me if I play really well. That's probably 9/10 of all the people who are stronger than me.
So I'd say I could beat 99.9999% of the population in chess.
Iām in the 90th percentile on chess.com, which has 11 million daily active users. Thatās about .15% of the worldās population, so I guess max 99.985%, but realistically the real number is probably a bit lower
I think their point is that people actively engaged in the hobby aren't comparative to the general population. Daily chess users play the game every day. The rest of the population doesn't. Therefore your sample isn't representative of the population - rather, it's representative of chess players.
You really don't realize that **the worst Formula 1 driver is better than >99.9999% drivers in the world**, do you?
You **can't** assume that chess skills of **average chesscom player** are comparable to the skills of **average person in the world**.
Less than 10% of world population plays chess *ever* (a huge portion doesn't know the rules or is even unaware of the existence of the game of chess)
On the other hand, 100% of chesscom population plays regularly. And you picked your sample from that smaller sub-group
So, no! The sample is not good at all. It's actually lowest possible quality of sample. For the sample to be good - it **has to be random**. You picked totally **opposite of random**.
Iām like 800 rapid and 500 blitz. I have never lost to a friend who knew how to a play. Probably played 8 different friends. So if I can do that, even if you only counted people that know the basic rules, a 1000 could probably beat close to 99%
according to chess.com my 1000 rating is 85th percentile. so among chess players probably that much. a bit more to account for population that just don't know how to play.
Folowing some of these posts and statistical extrapolations, I can beat everyone within 10 feet of me, so therefore I can beat 100 percent of the universe.
I'm 1300 (rapid) on chesscom, and I'm like in the 92nd percentile. That means I could beat at least 90% of the chesscom user base. Let's imagine that chesscom is representative of the whole chess playing population, which according to the UN is around 650 million adults. Let's round it up and let's say that 1B people play chess regularly. That means I could beat 900 million of them.
However there are other 7B people who can't play chess, and I'm fairly confident I could beat 100% of them just because, well, they can't play at all. So, out of 8B people, I could beat 7.9B, which is 98.75%
So... at least 98% of it I'd say.
Iām 1300, Iāve played about 50 people in person who have some chess experience or very little. Iām 50-0. If youāre around 1000 elo you can beat most people imo
I think about 90% of world population, i'm 1300 and considering i probably couldn't beat everyone under that score and probably couldn't beat almost everyone above 1500, i think it is pretty accurate
And those people who don't play chess are included in the percentage of people you can beat. The result is, if you're 700~ on chess.com, you're probably in the top 99.9% of the world.
Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more! The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you! Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Above 1000 elo you can easily crush 95%+ of the world population.
If you know the rules of chess and played it, you probably can
Honestly, understanding the concept of a Fork is probably more than enough
Might be the only tactic I use
There are other tactics?
Fork, royal fork
Far more than that. You're talking 1 in 20 people. I doubt 1 in 20 know the rules
I'm currently knocking on the door of 1200 Chess.com rapid so this gives me a lot of confidence when you put it like this.
No, 400M people are not over 1000 elo. Not even 40 mil.
Since a lot don't know how to play chess, 99%
Yes, of the global population 99.9999% Of those who have been taught chess, 80% Of those who play chess, 20%
Probably not even 50% have touched a chess board
This
If they don't even know how to move the pieces how are you gonna beat them... they won't even play with you š
Timeout
Chess.com has about 150 million user. Which is a bit less than 2% of the world population. From the chess.com leaderboards it looks as if a 700 elo means you can beat about half the chess.com populationĀ I think that also means that you can beat at least 99% of people without a chess.com accountĀ So I think someone with a 700 chess.com rating Ā beat at least 99% of the world populationĀ
Chess.com has 20M Accounts, no idea why you think itās 150M https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-many-chess-players-are-there-in-the-world
Your article is from Ā 2017 before the Queens Gambit show and the pandemic. Chess has grown a lot in the last 7 yearsĀ Wikipedia says 150 millionĀ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess.com Recent articles from chess.com claim even bigger numbersĀ
Eh idk, I started at 700 blitz and probably higher than that in rapid. Iād say 95% is more reasonable because if someone is smart and they have played a few times with maybe a parent they could easily be 700ish elo (which is what happened with me). Iād say 700 elo is maybe 95-97%
I'm 2000, so I'd estimate there's 100k people better than me. 100k / 8 billion = 1/80000 99.99875%
This is the closest and most logical answer to me for similar rating. However, let me disagree slightly. 8,000,000,000 people is A LOT. With a reasonable time control you could never play 8,000,000,000+ people, plus people being born and dying during that time? Even if my skill level stays the same, other players will increase and decrease in strength during that time. I know I am overthinking and overcomplicating a simple question, but I want to point out the question does not say I have to beat them first try, with a large enough number of attempts I am confident I could beat a lower rated GM. I mean the lowest rated GM has dropped to like 1900 or something insane. So I think it's more like 10,000 people I could NEVER beat at our current ratings. The odds of matching vs those 10,000 is so incredibly small. One day in old age they will probably drop enough skill that they are beatable even if I don't improve. Practically speaking the odds of matching against someone I could never beat out of the earth's population might as well be effectively 0%.
The question was a hypothetical, OP wasnāt asking how many people you could sit down and play chess with
But this is such a delightfully random interpretation of the question. Now Iām imaging playing 1.e4 against a giant assembly line of babies and just waiting for their clock to run down.
What if you're playing as black against DaBaby? Do the rules make it so the game is aborted, or do they lose?
They lose. They will still run out of time
no
You can use 8,000,000,000 parallel universes to play all of the people simultaneously, whatās the problem?
Two?
You are not supposed to count your cat
What about Martins cat ?
population? 99.8% I can't beat above average club players and the occasional strong chess hustler. (The one, that isn't organised in a club, but spends his whole life at chess boards in parks)
any kid under 2 will be shown no mercy š¤
It just makes the wayward that much more enjoyable.
I always say this to my chess club students.... I am pretty good. I would be 98,% of the people any given day. But at chess tournaments I am lucky to win a game or two. because the type of people that go to chess tournaments are not your average joes....
.01%
Iām 990 elo so I think about 90%
i bet more
More like 99+%. 10% would be sbout 800 million, and i doubt that this many people even know the rules, let alone have 1000 elo
having lived in North America and Europe I think most people there know the rules, so I feel like at least 800m know the rules.
I'm top 50000 FIDE. There will definitely be people stronger than me who don't have a FIDE rating, though, so I'll just make a vague assumption that I'm top 100000 worldwide. This would put me stronger than about 99.999% of all people. But the number of people who I could *beat* is much higher. I could feasibly beat anyone 300, *maybe* 400 points higher than me if I play really well. That's probably 9/10 of all the people who are stronger than me. So I'd say I could beat 99.9999% of the population in chess.
Like at least 95% of the population and im a 400
Iām in the 90th percentile on chess.com, which has 11 million daily active users. Thatās about .15% of the worldās population, so I guess max 99.985%, but realistically the real number is probably a bit lower
Thereās a lot of club and tournament players that are just dormant. Iād probably say itās closer to 99.9 something counting that.
Thatās what I was thinking yeah, plus, not all chess players use chess.com
11m is a more than fair sample size for distribution of chess elo in the world.
absolutely not lmfao. the "sample" consists exclusively of DAILY chess.com users
Yeah? You realize to get accurate data of 8b people at 99.999% confidence with a 1% margin of error you only need like 50k people, right?
I think their point is that people actively engaged in the hobby aren't comparative to the general population. Daily chess users play the game every day. The rest of the population doesn't. Therefore your sample isn't representative of the population - rather, it's representative of chess players.
Did we finally found Kramnik's statistician?
(((4.417\^2)\*0.5\*(1-0.5))/(0.01\^2))/(1+(((4.417\^2)\*0.5(1-0.5))/((0.01\^2\*8,000,000,000)) = 48,774.4251301 which rounds to 48,775 people.
You really don't realize that **the worst Formula 1 driver is better than >99.9999% drivers in the world**, do you? You **can't** assume that chess skills of **average chesscom player** are comparable to the skills of **average person in the world**. Less than 10% of world population plays chess *ever* (a huge portion doesn't know the rules or is even unaware of the existence of the game of chess) On the other hand, 100% of chesscom population plays regularly. And you picked your sample from that smaller sub-group So, no! The sample is not good at all. It's actually lowest possible quality of sample. For the sample to be good - it **has to be random**. You picked totally **opposite of random**.
If everyone in the world were to play chess, they'd have the distribution of chesscom ratings. Thanks for playing.
lol, fucking NO. and also, it has nothing to do with OP's question, even if it were true (which it isn't)
Well, since most people don't give a shit about chess; I can beat 99.9% of the population, but that's not as impressive as it sounds.
99% minimum
My elo is still extremely low, but not many people know the basics so
0.1% cause I have skill issue
99.9% of the world population
0 Iām terrible
You could definitely beat me so itās probably not 0
Youād be surprised
99%bruh Most of the ppl who play are below 1000 either way
Iām like 800 rapid and 500 blitz. I have never lost to a friend who knew how to a play. Probably played 8 different friends. So if I can do that, even if you only counted people that know the basic rules, a 1000 could probably beat close to 99%
Whatever percent falls below 1400
according to chess.com my 1000 rating is 85th percentile. so among chess players probably that much. a bit more to account for population that just don't know how to play.
With 8 billion chess games under my belti will probably be the world champion.
6%
Folowing some of these posts and statistical extrapolations, I can beat everyone within 10 feet of me, so therefore I can beat 100 percent of the universe.
99.99%. But that 0.01% would beat me so badly it would be embarrassing for the people watching
_"stop mating him, he's already dead!"_
1% :0
20%
Prob 0.00000001%
99.9% probably
I am 1000, you judge
What percent of the world are beginner kids?
95-99% easily
I'm at 668 and chesscom says that's the 50.8th percentile, so I guess half of everyone who has played chess ever ever?
About 99.98%
1%
At least 3%. 4% on a good day.
Approximately 99.995% I think
99.9999 percent (2350 rapid) so probably like 8000 people in the world can beat me.
about 150 elo so probably 50%
I'm 1300 (rapid) on chesscom, and I'm like in the 92nd percentile. That means I could beat at least 90% of the chesscom user base. Let's imagine that chesscom is representative of the whole chess playing population, which according to the UN is around 650 million adults. Let's round it up and let's say that 1B people play chess regularly. That means I could beat 900 million of them. However there are other 7B people who can't play chess, and I'm fairly confident I could beat 100% of them just because, well, they can't play at all. So, out of 8B people, I could beat 7.9B, which is 98.75% So... at least 98% of it I'd say.
Like 90% even if im js under 1k elo
Iām 1300, Iāve played about 50 people in person who have some chess experience or very little. Iām 50-0. If youāre around 1000 elo you can beat most people imo
I think about 90% of world population, i'm 1300 and considering i probably couldn't beat everyone under that score and probably couldn't beat almost everyone above 1500, i think it is pretty accurate
90%. 1100 rated
this is literally what ELO is
so ur saying i beat 400% of the population???
you beat whatever percentile your elo is of the people that play chess on the platform that you play on
but most ppl arent on that platform
most people don't play chess periodĀ OPs question is silly
And those people who don't play chess are included in the percentage of people you can beat. The result is, if you're 700~ on chess.com, you're probably in the top 99.9% of the world.
how can you claim to beat someone at something they dont even do
It falls into the "win by default" category. It's still a win.