Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

What is a good rating for a teenager?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #41


    Totally agree with Smyslov on that point. Obviously, you can be underrated. But you shouldn't use that possibility to make a strong claim about it. The problem is subjectivity: when we assess our play, we may be unconsciously trying to emphasize the good points of our play, for example, a game where we beat a player much higher rated, conveniently forgetting about our difficulties in avoiding draws and losses against lower rated and equal players. It's just so natural that a person will look at the good aspects of their play, and their good moments where they performed "better than their rating" that can keep them from getting the full picture. If you say you are underrated yet after, say, three tournaments, you don't move much, whatever you may think of your play, something is keeping you from getting results.

    As for me, I think my 1950 USCF is pretty accurate at the moment (that's right, I am not claiming to be underrated), but as I acquire new ideas and improve my consistency (one of the most important areas for me to work on IMO), I think getting to 2000 within a year or so is fairly feasible -- we'll see.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #42


    I think I am overrated. I just played in a tournament where I won one, drew one, and lost three, and my rating change was only -2 despite such an abysmal performance. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #43


    You must have played a bunch of masters or something!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #44


    hoynck wrote:

    I don't know how long you are playing already, but to be honest: 1300 at 16 is not very promissing, I think.

    Forty years back, when I was 13, it took me only half a year to gain a national rating of 1600 (which was comparable with Fide 165O nowadays), after one and a half year I was at 1800 and the next 100 took another year. When I was 16 I won my first regional youth tournament. When I was 17 I played my first large international youth tournament (in Biel, Switzerland). I ended up 5th place (amongst 150 or so); in the last round with black I mistreated an Alekhine defense against Murray Chandler, who won the tournament and became a GM quite soon.

    But I have to admit that I studied just as hard at chess than I did with schoolwork. It might very well be that you would improve faster if you would invest more time.

    Good luck and success!

    I invest quite a bit of time! I play daily, and study tactics and strategy probably four days a week. And I understand what you're saying, but as I stated earlier, I am not looking to compete with grandmasters in Switzerland in a year or two. I'm just looking to be in the pack, and several people said that I'm already there.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #46


    Well said, Pfren!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #47


    Well, rating for me is the main measure of my progress. Obviously it doesn't always flesh out perfectly, but it's only my steadily increasing number that can confirm to me for sure that I am improving (at least result wise, which is what generally matters most IMO), rather than just subjectively thinking I'm improving. I guess inflation and other anomalies are possible, but not likely to be significant. For example if I have been way above 1500 for years, even after playing numerous tournaments, I can be pretty confident that I am a better player than I was when I was 1500.

    My craving to move up now is not any different from my craving to move up when I was rated lower -- we would always prefer a higher number than the one we have.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #48


    I think what they mean is in the beginning what's important is setting up a good foundation of knowledge / good habits.  This doesn't always translate to increased performance at first.  Meanwhile in the beginning you can increase your performance without increasing your knowledge in a useful way (e.g. dubious gambits).

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #49


    Ok, I agree with that.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #50


    Elubas, Pfren's comment was about a 16 year-old who is just starting out and is concerned about his rating. It wasn't about someone trying to break 2000 OTB. He wasn't talking about you.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #51


    age 13, 1500 FIDE, 1620 chess.com, 2000 chesscube

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #52


    I'm in Ireland. I'd put my real OTB playing strength at about 1600 or 1550, but I don't have anything more than a provisional here (I'm basing that on 15 games I've played in OTB tournaments which give me a playing strength of 1600, but I'm not sure if it's quite that high). Nobody else in my school plays chess, really, but there's a teacher whose father coached the Irish chess Olympiad team one year. He's not bad, supposedly a 1600 but it's dubious considering how easily I can beat him. I get wheeled out for simuls in assemblies all the time, which is a total joke considering I never have to play anybody better than a beginner there and it makes me look great. I started playing 9 months ago, about. :) Wish I was in the States. Scholastic chess looks to be so much more organized.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #53


    Everybody's view on what a good rating is is different for everyone. It's not like you can just put people into 2 sections, good and bad.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #54


    Checking back on this, like a year and a half later. I can't believe how rating-conscious I was, haha. 

Back to Top

Post your reply: