Rating 2000

Actually I think she does. She makes a nice analysis as to differences between play in levels of 1000, 1400 and 2000, based on some really nice observation. Way to go Plutonia!

its kinda funny, i will look at a game played by 1300s and wonder what the hell theyre thinking, but i bet its exactly the same for people in 2000s looking at my game lol

Not really...but suit yourself (it's all relative, right?). 

A good player would be around 2750+

Mediocre players might be as low as 2600 or so. Everyone below that are patzers. 

mediocre? The average player is no where near 2600. I think a GM is at least deserving of the title 'good player'.

Id say 'good' is perhaps 2200.

Not to Kasparov. 

As I have said, the matter has some relativism, but not necessarily proportionally to rating increase. When I was 1600, I thought 1900s were great, and now as a 1900... I still think they are great

You're a sly one, Looby. 

Well first of all that's a complete guess on your part becuase it doesn't look like you're 2000.

Second of all... lol

I agree with andy, you need to find some masters you can regularly play and notice how none of your moves seem to work anymore :p

It is all relative but the stronger you are the more likely you will define a good player as higher than most would describe.

But I thought this thread was what are the chances to become a 2000 rated player?

So we're in agreement. Just take the average of players' ratings because everyone beside a negligible portion is considered good to someone else.

With due respect wafflemaster, I think it's in bad taste to tell someone how they should view a certain level of play, even if it's themselves. I know, not only based on the mathematics of the rating system, but also in my ample experience of playing experts, masters, and international masters, that there are things they do, that I either don't do, or do worse.

And yet, you could use this line of reasoning to tell Carlsen that he needs to play Houdini some more for him to realize that he's "not as good as he thinks he is," or something to this effect. And indeed, Houdini would probably show tons of flaws in his play. No matter how high of a level you reach, your perception can always point to a higher level of play -- even if someone became capable of playing the "perfect game," (difficulties in defining this aside) even then, you could start measuring skill by speed, and say "you may be able to play a perfect game at standard time controls, but perhaps you can't do so in a 5 minute game," and that 5 minute game could turn into a 3 minute game, or a bullet game, or a 10 second game, or a 1/10 second game -- one can divide skill as much as one desires. You can always find something you can't do, no matter the field

This is why it is important to appreciate the level of skill you are able to achieve -- perfection is impossible. I could point to all of the things I can't do in chess as well as stronger players, but the fact of the matter is, I just happen to be satisfied with what I am able to do: the kinds of deep (to me) connections I can make about a position; the tactics I am able to see, or the king and pawn endgames I get a joy out of figuring out. And no amount of losses to Houdini (I used to play Houdini a lot, by the way -- it's an interesting experience) will change that satisfaction I have from achieving all that I have.

Ooh, that last sentence...I feel another Smuggie coming on! 

Yes, I just realized that people might conflate my self-appreciation (something that we all should have) with arrogance. I think of conceit as not only being satisfied with yourself, but using it to put yourself above others. My accomplishment's only purpose is to make me happy and satisfied; it's not about what others think of them.

This applies to everyone. If you're proud of yourself that you made it to 1000, or 1200, or whatever the number, don't feel like you should stop being proud just because you can use relativism to infer that your play is bad. As long as you don't try to use your accomplishments to convince people that you are worse or better than others, I think it's healthy to be happy with what you have done, as long as you also set goals for yourself at the same time. My goal is to continue to move up in the ratings, but if I stay 1900 for the rest of my life, that's ok too, as long as I know I tried.

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.