A good rapid rating for new chess players is between 200 and 400. Those who joined chess.com will start at 400. And the average rapid rating in Chess.com is 1000 (which is intermediate).
Whats a good rating for an 11 year old that just started learning chess
Sort:
Oct 26, 2021
0
#3
Pixel511 wrote:
I’ve just started playing chess and taking it seriously about 2-3 weeks ago. Before i knew how to play i just didnt learn any techniques or play often. I make a lot of careless mistakes and blunders in rapid playing so im only about 400 but im 600 in puzzles. I seem to be going back and forth in my rapid rating and i font feel like im improving very much, so can someone help with that too? Many thanks
Try to play against bots and take lesson. Take your time to think about your moves (longer rapid game and 14 days daily chess is reccomended) and think about what would happen if you make that move. Here's some tip I have:
1. At the beginning of the game, develope your pieces (especially bishops and knights. )
2. Bring your pieces to the middle of the board.
3.Castle as soon as possible.
4. Play an unrated rapid chess.
I’m getting so close to 500….
I'm 13 and I started playing about a year and 1/2 ago. I started at a 600 level and since have worked up to around a 1100 level. One thing that has really helped me is my school. In my school there is a chess class which I took early on and a chess club. I am a part of the chess club and the coach has helped me a lot with improving. Another benefit of some chess clubs is they give you free memberships to things like Chess.com or ChessKid.com, which gives you unlimited access to lessons and puzzles. My advice to improve: try to find someone who you know that's a lot better than you and can play you in person. I know a guy who is way higher level than me and I meet up to play with him sometimes; he gives me tips and things to work on so I can get better. Also try to get into a chess club or group. Good luck and I hope you stay with this great game.
(I wrote a lot, sorry, but I hope you get what I'm saying.)
Oct 30, 2021
0
#6
Hard to quantify what a "good" rating is for anyone. It's all relative to whoever you're asking
Given that you just started 2 weeks ago, you really don't need to be worrying about rating. It's just a benchmark to ensure you're matched fairly with players around your skill level.
Do I personally think your rating is good? Well no, but you just started and given that you say you're taking it "seriously", I reckon your rating is probably going to skyrocket over the coming months. I would currently consider you a novice, around 800 is when I would consider you a beginner.
But again, it's all relative. I'm sure some people disagree with my statement
I finally made it over to 500. So this might help you compare my rating to someone else who’s a beginner. I’m also a beginner but with close to 100 games in.
Oct 30, 2021
0
#8
CooloutAC wrote:
DasBurner wrote:
Hard to quantify what a "good" rating is for anyone. It's all relative to whoever you're asking
Given that you just started 2 weeks ago, you really don't need to be worrying about rating. It's just a benchmark to ensure you're matched fairly with players around your skill level.
Do I personally think your rating is good? Well no, but you just started and given that you say you're taking it "seriously", I reckon your rating is probably going to skyrocket over the coming months. I would currently consider you a novice, around 800 is when I would consider you a beginner.
But again, it's all relative. I'm sure some people disagree with my statement
I agree with the first half of your statement. Its well said. But I would of left out the second half man. Now if the kid doesn't get over 800 rating in a few months he might quit which is not good for the site or the sport. Which is silly, because most people are not over that. Its the avg rating. And like I said, a whole lot of people never even make it over 400.
depends on what you mean by "most people"
If you're talking about society as a whole, then yeah. Most people probably don't even pass 200
As for the general chess community, the average rating has been extremely deflated over the course of the past few years or so. Before Covid, the average rating on chess.com was something like 1100. Obviously now it's much lower. Clubs are even higher. The average club player is something around 1200 uscf which is like 1500 on chess.com
As for him quitting if he doesn't get 800, ok. It's just a game. Even still, it's not particularly hard to get to 800 either. I got to it when I first started in about a month without any study. Others will say the same. Yes there's outliers, but whatever
Oct 30, 2021
0
#9
I'm not being facetious at all
1. The rating fluctuation isn't meaningless. I'm using it to indicate the imprecision of your argument by saying the "average rating" is a good benchmark for skill. Just because people around that rating are the benchmark average doesn't mean they suddenly become intermediates. It just means there's more beginners. Average /= Intermediate (or good imo) in this scenario
2. Obviously I'm not trying to say he should be frustrated with whatever rating he does or doesn't get. I just said to not pay attention to it. If he gets frustrated by me saying that then he's not taking the advice correctly
3. How am I contradicting myself? All I'm doing is using my argument of relativity and giving my relative opinion of his rating. Yes 80% of people on chess.com are under 800 but if you're aiming to improve then why are you trying to be stuck with the rest of the player population? Don't you want to be better than them? It was encouragement
4. I don't care what you think I should have stuck with. I'll say whatever I want to say lol
5. "You are literally saying he is not good if he doesn't get over 800"
Clearly you didn't understand my first statement anyway. It's relative. Me saying it's not good doesn't mean it's not a good rating compared to everyone else. It's just not a good rating to me
But if it satisfies you that much, I'll just recant whatever I said after whatever I said that you think is good
Oct 30, 2021
0
#10
i think hes talking about like casual players and competitve folks that hire like gm coaches and stuff
royalknight101 wrote:
just 400 or lower, i am not really a expert but just very low
Just realized what ur pfp is.
CooloutAC wrote:
chessPlatypus01 wrote:
i think hes talking about like casual players and competitve folks that hire like gm coaches and stuff
Ya i'd agree thats a whole different ball game. I mean they do have amateur tourneys. I know according to FIDE community you are no longer considered a Novice at 1200. Its a different playerbase and slightly different rating system so can't really make a direct comparison. But maybe at 1200 if you stop improving from videos and books, hire a coach? Its all up to the individual imo. At 2000 you are considered and expert and basically at a pro level.
Nice wall in your pfp
Oct 30, 2021
0
#13
1. I don't agree.
2. Not my responsibility to let him know that 90% of players are under 600 (which isn't true anyway. If it was true, a 600 would be in the 90th percentile. A 618 is in the 32.6th percentile). And I don't agree
3. I think you seem confused. Ha! How about that!
I say he shouldn't care what other people think of his rating. I say what I think of his rating along with that to actually answer his original question instead of giving the cliche answer. He shouldn't care what I think of his rating based off of that first point. And I don't agree
4. Cool
5. Refer to point 3
Oct 30, 2021
0
#14
Ok, final post from me
1. Good, because I don't agree and am tired of arguing for it lol
2. Let's just take a random person rated 618. Perhaps @PenroseOrb04, who is rated 618 rapid on chess.com. Here are their stats
Now naturally, if 90% of people were rated less than 600, than this person rated over 600 would be in a percentile higher than 90th , right? Well, evidently that's not actually true. A player around 600 is around the 33rd percentile, which means that 33% of players on chess.com are rated under 600.
3. I don't agree
(Quick reasoning: He's 11. He has oodles of potential, and in the coming months if his rating skyrockets like I predict it will, he's going to look back at his games and say "Jesus I was trash". And if he gets to 1500, he'll look back at his games from when he was 1100 and say "Jesus I was trash". Rinse and repeat with higher numbers)
but we can agree to disagree
Have a good night
DasBurner wrote:
Ok, final post from me
1. Good, because I don't agree and am tired of arguing for it lol
2. Let's just take a random person rated 618. Perhaps @PenroseOrb04, who is rated 618 rapid on chess.com. Here are their stats
Now naturally, if 90% of people were rated less than 600, than this person rated over 600 would be in a percentile higher than 90th , right? Well, evidently that's not actually true. A player around 600 is around the 33rd percentile, which means that 33% of players on chess.com are rated under 600.
3. I don't agree
(Quick reasoning: He's 11. He has oodles of potential, and in the coming months if his rating skyrockets like I predict it will, he's going to look back at his games and say "Jesus I was trash". And if he gets to 1500, he'll look back at his games from when he was 1100 and say "Jesus I was trash". Rinse and repeat with higher numbers)
but we can agree to disagree
Have a good night
Nigh-night
Oct 30, 2021
0
#17
CooloutAC wrote:
DasBurner wrote:
1. I don't agree.
2. Not my responsibility to let him know that 90% of players are under 600 (which isn't true anyway. If it was true, a 600 would be in the 90th percentile. A 618 is in the 32.6th percentile). And I don't agree
3. I think you seem confused. Ha! How about that!
I say he shouldn't care what other people think of his rating. I say what I think of his rating along with that to actually answer his original question instead of giving the cliche answer. He shouldn't care what I think of his rating based off of that first point. And I don't agree
4. Cool
5. Refer to point 3
1. then we agree to disagree. You knew it was going to cause controversy by y our last sentence too. Again I agree whole heartedly with the first half of what you said though. And thats the only thing that should matter especially to a new player.
2. It absolutely is. Did you take my advice and look at the global stats on the website? Hover your mouse over the peak of the curve, look how steep it is. I mean i'm just giving arough estimate. But it was surprising to me as well and looking at that should make anyone feel better about their rating.
3. I'm trying to unconfuse people here. lol And I agree, because most people are at his rating and he is only 11 years old. Thats amazing. he can only get better from there.
theres a lot of focus and comitment, with lots yu can rise to 2200 in like 4 years if your really focused
site rating graph isnt accurate, does not account for non players dragging it down
Oct 30, 2021
0
#19
OP hasn't logged on in months; don't think this argument however much type it was one has any purpose whatsoever.
s