What does a 100 rated player play like?

we all would love to be 2000,😄 but what would a 100 player play like?

Thanks! That's all I wanted to know! 😄

A similar (similarly fatuous?) question that's been on my mind for a while: is there a theoretical "rating floor"? If so, what is it, both numerically and in terms of play mechanics? Ostensibly, a player would obtain the lowest rating by consistently chosing the worst moves possible. If that's the case, what rating might result from playing completely random moves over many thousands of games?

Well? The floor here is said to be 100

You remember the Gorilla from old chessmaster 9000? I think it had a rating around that area, give or take. 

You have to be pretty clever to choose the very worst possible move in any position (Nigel Short can do it at times though...) - but probably random moves are good enough. 

At what point does a patzer reach a state where he's not going to beat the random-move-player each and every single game? 

Does that point exist? 

Where it exists, then the random-move-player will be within 800 points below that patzer. It must be well below zero (the random-move-player), not really 100. 

Ok

that gorilla checkmated me once lol when i was kid and learning chess and(but i could beat 500-900 almost every back then)  wanted to see what he can do haha it was funny random moves but if see mate in 2 or smth will go for it. 

Elo 100 probably don't know how to move pieces yet.

My calculations have discovered that the only 100 rated player here is in fact, Newengland7.

Oh look! Someone else has a knight as their picture?

The gorilla checkmated you? You're kidding me. I don't believe that it's possible. 

Oh - so it wasn't completely random then (the gorilla...) I thought it was...

Lol

Quite. I understand USCF and chess.com impose artificial rating floors to combat deflation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Mathematical_details), but would like to hear from someone who is well versed in the mathematics of Elo ratings.

Ok

You only want to learn from the best( you, Ronald, and Kayak)

From my experience, 100 rated players are extremely fast. Once, a 100-rated sandbagger beat me in bullet. :)

I've taught chess to classes of kindergarten and 1st grade students who didn't know the rules of chess going into the class. Some kids learn very quickly and are able to play chess quite well even at such a young age (4-6), but in other classes, sometimes even the best players end up with ratings of 100 when they go to a tournament after a couple of months of playing.

It therefore follows that many of the kids who are just starting to play would actually have negative ratings if they competed in tournaments and the system allowed ratings to drop below 100.

The theoretical negative-rating kids just put pieces on squares where they can be taken very often and miss when their opponents do the same. The 100-rated ones still do both of those things fairly often, but much less often than the rest of their classmates.

MSC157 wrote:

From my experience, 100 rated players are extremely fast. Once, a 100-rated sandbagger beat me in bullet. :)

Lol

<NM Happytoad> that's quite unbelievable. It makes people rated 1200 and 1450 already seem like pretty accomplished players.