Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?


  • 5 months ago · Quote · #241

    Ziryab

    Tom_Brady_SB49_Champ wrote:
    varelse1 wrote:

    PG-13 would be the ideal rating on this site. But that's a bit hopeful. Mostly, I'm happy if its kept rated-R.

    Can't get any worse than rated R

    R is the only rating that suggests a movie is worth my time.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #242

    SmyslovFan

    You would miss out on some great movies if that's true.

    I still believe strongly that chess ratings are generally good for chess. Yes, they are elitist, but that's the fault of the game itself. While almost anyone can play chess, few can play it well.

    I also still stand by my early remark: a good rating is whatever your best rating is +200. 

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #243

    Ziryab

    SmyslovFan wrote:

    You would miss out on some great movies if that's true.

    With the proper bribes, several good movies have come out as PG.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #244

    9spaceking

    titust wrote:

    I think 9999 (which is impossible) is the best rating

    lol that's stupid...even reaching 3,000 is quite difficult. :P

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #245

    tlycan50

    my opinion is that being considered a good player isn't to do with scores. rating isnt important therefore resigning sometimes simply means unforeseeable circumstances arose.

  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #246

    Johnsyrup

    A good rating is one which you yourself feel represents the best you can achieve ... Me I follow "You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else.Albert Einstein

    Problem: I have ocercome the first challenfe but oscilate around 1350 and guess  will never achieve the second ... but its still a buzz when I beat someone 100 points higher than me and a downer when someone 100 pounts worse than me .. play and enjoy 

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #247

    charlesfrenette

    Pink elephants love to eat stockfish for breakfast. That's my 2 cents

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #248

    Robert0905

    1600 is the average rating I believe

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #249

    SmyslovFan

    Robert0905 wrote:

    1600 is the average rating I believe

    No, the average ratings for this site according to their own stats are:

    CC: 1325

    Bullet: 1146

    Blitz: 1096

    Std: 1290

    You can see the stats if you click  Play  >> Live Chess then go down to "View Players" 

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #250

    Murgen

    SmyslovFan wrote:

    You would miss out on some great movies if that's true.

    I still believe strongly that chess ratings are generally good for chess. Yes, they are elitist, but that's the fault of the game itself. While almost anyone can play chess, few can play it well.

    I also still stand by my early remark: a good rating is whatever your best rating is +200. 

    Hehehe! An "acceptable" rating is whatever my rating is +100! Laughing

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #251

    hhnngg1

    SmyslovFan wrote:
    Robert0905 wrote:

    1600 is the average rating I believe

    No, the average ratings for this site according to their own stats are:

    CC: 1325

    Bullet: 1146

    Blitz: 1096

    Std: 1290

    You can see the stats if you click  Play  >> Live Chess then go down to "View Players" 

    This sounds right to me. 

     

    A lof folks here don't realize that there's a big discrepancy is the ratings, particular in that blitz ratings here are def under-rated compared to the others. Play a 1200 blitz here and he'll be wayyy stronger than a 1200 slow-move player, and def as strong as a USCF 1400 OTB. (When I was 1450 USCF tournament play, I was probably as strong as a 1100 blitz player here on chess.com)

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #252

    Retherek

    I thought I was a pretty good player most of my life because I could beat my friends, most casual players I came across, and I could beat my older brothers who started teaching me the rules of chess at the very young age of 3yrs old.

    This took me through most of my life as a fairly strong non-studied player. I could beat almost anyone I had ever played. I even came across a self-proclaimed Life Master (personally, he came across more as just a pot-head to me....lol) in my mid 20s who I managed to gain a draw with after losing to him about 15 games in a row.  He was impressed with my non-educated play, in that because I had never studied a chess book or any openings, middle or end game literature.

    Anyway, this life master convinced me that I should start playing with a chess group that played at UW Madison. I went and joined their group and lost my first 9 tournament games in a row to players ranging anywhere from 1400-2000. I had no idea what the numbers even meant. It was an extremely humbling experience that made me realize how little I actually knew about chess.  I do remember getting my first USCF rating from it and was surprised to see it was 1500; even though I hadn't won a single game. This makes me realize that without book knowledge a 1500 rating is achievable. Anything above that seems to take study.

    25 years later, and the occasional study of things like the e4 and d4 openings, as well as tactics and strategies, my rating has jumped a whole 200 points to 1700. Yeah, not so good. haha!  Chess takes a lot of commiment I never seemed to be able to completely commit an extended amount of time too. But I still love to play, and I guess I will have to be content as just 1700 rated player. :)

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #253

    Johnkagey

    JuliusH wrote:

    You can view a distribution on ratings on here (http://www.chess.com/echess/players.html). It follows pretty typical Gaussian (aka "Bell) distribution, so if "good" is considered being in the top quarter, or tenth, or whatever you can go and find it yourself. It seems average on here is centered at 1310.

    I clicked on the link and it came up as missing page. if you would please check and repost.

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #255

    chesster3145

    I always thought good was 1600-1700.


Back to Top

Post your reply: