When is one considered good at FFA?

This is my hierarchy at the moment:

• 1200 - 1400 = Beginner
• 1401 - 1599 = Intermediate
• 1600 - 1700 = Advanced
• 1701 - 1900 = Pro
• 1901 - 2000 = Elite
• 2001 - 2200 = Master
• ??? = Grand Master

Agree or Disagree?

I'm a 1564 ATM, so I'd categorize myself as Intermediate.

Legitimate 

1000-1500 Beginner

1500-1750 intermediate

1750-2000 Advanced

2000-2200 Elite

2200-2500 Masters

2500-above Grand Masters

1399 and lower: Beginner

1400-1699: Intermediate

1700-1899: Advanced

1900-2049: Expert

2050 and higher: Master

uhm rating does not always tell the truth

now players like me and Ne2willdo who have often been top10/top20 went down on rating (1900) only because we kept playing after the team mode was released and got a lot of low rated players 

I agree with @The-Lone-Wolf

I have really only made it to the top 10 once and I do not consider myself as good as other players that has consistently gotten into the top 10. I still think I am a decent player though

I wholeheartedly agree, especially with "rating does not always tell the truth."  I lost over 250 rating points in team 4PC being paired with scrubs, new chess.com members who didn't know how to play chess and/or [as too often] members who write and read other than english language.  The aforementioned rating levels hold no weight!

@EmpireCityRay The ratings do in fact hold weight. Why do you think so many higher rated players didn't want to play lower rated ones? Its because they'd often end up getting teamed by 1200/1300 rated players.

Rating is almost as important as the pieces themselves as far as I'm concerned. If anything, the higher the rating, the higher the perceived status of the player. No one wants to play noobs, if they have a high degree of skill in the game.

@thechesssavage Ratings do hold some weight I agree but the levels written by members don't!  I lost 250 rating points because of others so while my rating might state one number my playing level is way higher than a number or some idiotic scale posted above.

@EmpireCityRay the rating system in FFA is accurate as far as I'm concerned. I don't know about team because that system depends on your partner which is why I don't mess with that variant. FFA is the more difficult version of FFA from my perspective anyway.

@thechesssavage You do realize that unlike a USCF OTB game, 4PC in FFA does run very much open in ratings so all 4 seated aren't tightly similar in ratings?  The ratings going in as paired will skew the results in how rating points are distributed once the game concludes.  You guys are trying to invent some class system in FFA similar to USCF's which is hilarious because who is to state any of you or even staff is correct on a "final" level system?!  The answer no one as chess.com is not a national federation nor FIDE itself.  So anyone can write up some level but it holds no weight.  In an old (some 9 years back) article here, ratings in levels was touched upon and @earnerlearner and his comment summed it up best.  So heck call yourself GM for all one cares, it's chess.com and it doesn't matter what level you are here.

1200 - 2000 = Beginners

2001 - 2016 = Just Lucky Guys

2017 = Super Top Grand Master And Champion

2018+ = Cheaters

@BabYagun You win!!! LOL  That's the official one!!!

@BabYagun why does everyone keep saying its possible to cheat in FFA? I've never seen it...

@thechesssavage Because it has happen far too many times (not by myself, though witnessed) and it can be done...

under 1500  =  erratic,   unpredictable.   No understanding of either chess or  4 player basic strtegy,  or both.

1500-1800 =  capable of decent play,   but prone to make horrible strategical mistakes from time to time.  It depends on the level of play in normal chess:   a 1900 blitz player who is 1600 in ffa doesnt understand ffa,  but is a solid chess player and will find tactics when they arise.  A 1200 blitz player who's 1600 in ffa understands ffa quite well,  but will miss on wnning ideas sometimes.

1700-1900 good, decent players. Have  their personal weaknesses,  maybe cracks under pressure,   maybe lacks in some aspects of chess,   but  generally will not play comepletely stupid moves.  Can be relied upon to make rational decisions most of the time. 

1900-2000  strong and very strong players.  Will generally find  ways to stay alive as long as possible, be aware of points at all time, will punish mistakes.  Will not react with emotion and self-destruct... 

2000+  = same as 1900 to 2000,  but on a good run

At the risk of insulting most of chess.com's average members, this alone proves why the topic and faint idea are each moronic.

I've been in the 1600's now and then, as high as 1688 I think, so on that evidence I will call 1600-1699 "Gets most of it in the toilet most of the time."

I get paired with 'scrubs' and i can keep 1700 most of the time. 1600 minimum. With really good players I play like a spastic most of the time but on good days i have got past 1900 almost 2k.

@Jake_Paul7 note the differential of when you're with "scrubs" to "really good players."  That spread is wider than JLo's derriere!  In addition, I'm sure you carry the weight when paired with scrubs.  The individuals I've been paired lately on Team 4PC are those who joined the website the latest last month though really as with most: recently.