I (vaguely) recall a study by Newcastle University (UK) done many years ago where members of the public were invited to produce a piece of work (maybe a short essay) on a subject that all of them could take a decent stab at e.g. describe and contrast the four seasons. Having finished, they were then asked to assess the quality of their own work. I don't remember how, but lets imagine they could claim it to be an 'advanced' piece or maybe even of 'expert' quality. Those less pleased with their accomplishments would have lower designations to select from. I am sure the study produced a lengthy report :) but one of its core findings was that those people who were clearly intellegent/knowledgeable and produced really good work tended to underrate their efforts, perhaps placing their work as being in the average-above average range. Those who were clearly less proficient tended to overrate their work, clearly blissfully unaware that there are large segments of the population with greater ability. Some of the worst pieces of work were rated quite highly by their owners. I offer this as an explaination of what I find on BBO. 'Beginners' who are really quite competent at the game with some well applied advanced knowledge, but too modest to promote themselves (or maybe lacking the confidence to). On the other hand I have kibbed 'expert' games and seen some inexplicable errors not excused due to lack of concentration. These errors are mercilessly exposed usually by the partner and the 'exchange of views' can be quite entertaining. The BBO site offers clear guidelines as to how you should rate yourself, but clearly this is a very difficult area of self assessment. However, I sometimes wonder whether people put themselves forward as 'expert' just for the fun of it, since I see some tables ask for 'real experts'.
