Good is relative.
Are you good at chess?
Sort:
a 1800+ rating is considered good, therefore im just average
I think anyone that plays on chess.com is good.
Sort of like how people in the US sometimes say they're "poor" but neglect to realize that they are in the top 1% of the world's wealth even in severe poverty in the US.
If somebody with even a 1000 rating on chess.com was paired with a random person in the world for a chess game, he would do really well.
coolguy2007 wrote:
Are you?
Define good.
No 
hmmmmm.... seeings as good can be an adjective describing moral character and i cant recall sinning during a chess game... yes
on second review i may have taken the lords name a time or two so... no
i think i need a prist
on second review i may have taken the lords name a time or two so... no
i think i need a prist
No.
I'm having fun playing though.
No, but from time to time I have some interesting ideas.
I'm awesome, the guy above is just a novice compared with me
Good at chess can mean title player or a GM. But can mean also above average rated which is pretty low (1200-1500). compared to all active chess players i am good at chess Problem is... the higher you go... you see how much more you don't know. How much stuff is waited to be learned. And the more you learn it becomes more and more harder to spot everything on board and to apply it - and this sometimes makes you lose track on simple idea and to blunder something which will make you feel that you are not good at chess at all, but looking back at how much players are behind me surely feels nice. And mastering the fundamentals - basic/intermediate endgame theory, tactics, openings, strategy will make you feel a lot better.
I think a one player can start feel good and perhaps little strong is when he starts defeating title players occasionally.
Compared to the people surrounding me? I'm good.
Compared to the people that I actually play chess with? I'm just average.
Compared to the titled players? I'm dirt.
no :-(
I don't know I play just for fun
Are you?