As my logic teacher once said:

"Good" can mean different things to different people. It's too vague.

Good could be 200 compared to 100; double the rating.

good can be any rating; there's no real level.

2000 is an Expert level, it's a great level! But it could seem bad compared to 3000.

@ Elubas
They can view a level of play any way they want, but if their reasoning is fundamentally wrong (or not there at all) I hope I'd point it out.

e.g. "At 2000 you understand the game.  And that means you're good."  but the statement isn't supported at all... plutonia is just assuming as a given "at 2000 you understand the game"  why?  "because they use deep strategies"  (again totally assumed).

-----------------

I'm not saying to be depressed about your chess elubas.  Like most players I'm pleased with the milestones I've achieved, and at the same time aware of the mistakes and misunderstandings (or non-understandings) I still have.

When you start to appreciate the level you've achieved too much, that's when you stop improving I think.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  I'm certainly not hungry to improve like I was a few years ago, and I can enjoy myself playing casually.

Sure.  And notice that in an odd way, the implication of all of this is that relativism is absolute. 

AndyClifton, this isn't a discussion of math facts ... it's a simple discussion and tossing about of opinion regarding the idea of "good" and the game of chess.  Nor does it hold the importance some might attach to political debate.  Telling people they "don't have a clue" speaks far more about the author than the subject.

So does making such "insightful" asides, DL...

At a certain point I just stopped reading AndyClifton... just lost interest.

Then start playing him a game or two.

That's not a bad idea either, of course - but pretty irrelevant to our discussion, as I think about making people feel better about playing, and he thinks about making people feel worse...

playing chess with him isn't going to influence this difference in attitude, although it can be fun in itself (provided he isn't abusive during play, of course)

I hear it's fine as long as you avoid his knights; they are rough, mostly abusive fellows. I recommend trading them off quickly to ensure a more pleasent game.

We are not computers that reason in terms of 1 and 0, our language must have assumptions to have some validity.

You and Andy can keep using this logical phallacy that I don't understand something only because somebody understands it even better. But in reality there's a certain level of understanding, it's just a convection I'll admit, but at this certain level you can say that somebody knows [how to do] something.

A 2000 player is OFFICIALLY called expert by the USCF. That means that the federation of chess thinks the same way I do. If I "don't know what I'm talking about" that means the USCF doesn't either.

And you don't even realize that your (you and Andy) argument would mean, like Elubas said, that even Carlsen is good at chess only "relatively" and his good understanding of chess is "totally assumed", because he would most likely be owned by any modern engine.

i think they are fairly solid at 2000 and it is more than enouth to be in a county team fairly high up there are not too many other people higher graded i can play against 1750 players where you can find their gaps in their skill but 2000 2150 far to solid for me they know how to attack and  defend

"phallacy"

lol 

untracked ... enjoy gentlemen and ladies

I will say this ... it was a very interesting conversation, but played out (imho) ...  is an understatement :)

Andy: As I said though, despite the fact that you can always look at people who do things better than you, I simply appreciate what my level can do. I'm happy with how well I understand chess, even if it's only a, well, 1900 level of chess understanding.

So, how you interpret that above fact depends on your attitude. You should be satisfied with yourself, yet continue to set goals for yourself (unless you're old, no, just kidding), and avoid being arrogant. I never try to feel good by convincing myself that I'm better than others; I try to feel good by looking at the bright side of my abilities, coupled with my inabilities.

So where is Andy?

2000 is no where near enough to be in a national team. Australia is a fairly weak country and our lowest player in our team is something like 2350

Yes, people have to assume to communicate or even function.  I don't care if you assume or not, I care about your basis for the assumption.

I'm not saying you don't understand something because someone understands it better.  I'm saying your characterization of their strength is poor.  Sure I'm only saying that because the language you use... but anyway...

The USCF expert title is not a certification.  There's no governing body that administers a test to see how much you know, it's simply how high your rating is, it's a performance level.  The fact that it's called "expert" is a social construct not a scientific term.  It's such a tongue in cheek argument to say otherwise it's painful to read it every time you bring it up.

Of course Carlsen's chess is only relatively good.  How else can you measure it?  Ask him which phase of the game he's mastered and I'd expect him to laugh at you.

When I used the phrase "totally assumed" I was talking about your being so sure on the specifics of how higher rated players play.  "experts win because of deep strategies"  I don't think so.  If by deep you  mean they develop their pieces and push passed pawns without dropping pieces left and right, then sure.

For me anybody that has a title is good! The ratings will tell which one is better than the other.

"For me anybody that"

Anybody who...