user11518: Does anyone know of a reliable source (e.g. a knowledgeable tutor, academic surveys, GM John Doe's autobiography) that verbally describes the ability and study/training material of a variety of chess players along the FIDE/USCF rating ladder? For example

The average X-rated player will see most one- and two-move tactics but is prone to oversight. He may know five or six moves of his "favorite" opening but likely is still gaining experience with what factors make a position "good." He has likely already learned basic endgame mates and KP vs. KP situations, and may go on to learn simple fundamentals like Lucena and Philidor.
The average Y-rated player will rarely ever lose material outright to simple threats or tactics. Lately he has been binging on Reassess Your Chess. He probably has a decent store of experience and theoretical knowledge about his opening repertoire. He may find it useful to study more intermediate-advanced endgame tactics like the Vancura position and memorize which pawns win or draw in which positions.
The average Z-rated player...

and so on. I know that any rigid attempt at proscribing what material is appropriate for which level player is bound to fail, but I still think ballparks and "on average" statements are useful for growth.

user12042: Here's a post I found that seems along the lines of what you're asking for. The descriptions seem more or less accurate to me (probably more for USCF as opposed to FIDE ratings), although the corresponding "years experience" it lists alongside the ratings seem to assume continuous, fairly serious tournament play, as opposed to a casual hobby.
As far as being a "reliable source", I'm not sure who the author is, but s/he appears to be quite prolific on that site, having written over 100 articles.

11518: <p>Does anyone know of a reliable source (e.g. a knowledgeable tutor, academic surveys, GM John Doe's autobiography) that verbally describes the ability and study/training material of a variety of chess players along the FIDE/USCF rating ladder? For example</p>

<ul>
<li><p>The average X-rated player will see most one- and two-move tactics but is prone to oversight. He may know five or six moves of his "favorite" opening but likely is still gaining experience with what factors make a position "good." He has likely already learned basic endgame mates and KP vs. KP situations, and may go on to learn simple fundamentals like Lucena and Philidor.</p></li>
<li><p>The average Y-rated player will rarely ever lose material outright to simple threats or tactics. Lately he has been binging on <em>Reassess Your Chess</em>. He probably has a decent store of experience and theoretical knowledge about his opening repertoire. He may find it useful to study more intermediate-advanced endgame tactics like the Vancura position and memorize which pawns win or draw in which positions.</p></li>
<li><p>The average Z-rated player...</p></li>
</ul>

<p>and so on. I know that any rigid attempt at proscribing what material is appropriate for which level player is bound to fail, but I still think ballparks and "on average" statements are useful for growth.</p>
 12042: <p><a href="http://beginchess.com/2009/08/02/anatomy-of-a-chess-player-from-beginner-to-expert/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here's a post</a> I found that seems along the lines of what you're asking for. The descriptions seem more or less accurate to me (probably more for USCF as opposed to FIDE ratings), although the corresponding "years experience" it lists alongside the ratings seem to assume continuous, fairly serious tournament play, as opposed to a casual hobby.</p>

<p>As far as being a "reliable source", I'm not sure who the author is, but s/he appears to be <a href="http://beginchess.com/author/beginchess/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">quite prolific</a> on that site, having written over 100 articles.</p>
