What by definition is a “good chess player”?

I’ve been thinking recently if I would count as a “good chess player”. Is it preference or a general rank?

It's more from a individual point of view. With 1700 german rating was one of the top guys in my old club, we had some 1300 and 1400 rated guys in our first team. I was seen as a good player there! But now i have some clubmates above 2000 and there i'm like the  1300 rated guys from my old team. You could do the same thing with a 2100 rated guy in a team with 2400+ International Masters, and with the international master in a top team with some 2700+ players.

From Kasparovs point of view everybody below 2600 Elo was a Patzer...

If your having fun your a good player.

The guy on the left looks pretty good IMO

Based on the people I see in my everyday life, you could be rated 700 and be considered better than average. On chess.com though, sorry, but no.

I like this. 

There are 7.5 billion people on the planet.  

700,000,000 know how to play chess.

If you know how the piece move, youre pretty good.

you are a good player starting from 1800. that's how i see it. you are much stronger than the average adult player, casual or tournament, and you are prob a top junior in your region with that rating.

What counts as "good" is of course quite subjective. Many GMs say that even an 1800 blunders a lot (how much depends on which person is saying it). On the other side of the coin though, post #8 is right about the fact that even a 700 rating could perhaps be seen as better than average (it all depends on the skill of the pool of players you have). In all honesty though, there is often not that big of a difference in Chess ability between a 700 and 800 player and so on. A 700 player may play one game like someone rated 1000, but then play like a 300 during the next game - rating is merely an average. Does "good" mean better than average, or does it mean "among the top" players? 

If your definition is the first, then it is around 1000 rating on chess.com (because many people create an account and then quit/get a dormant account at a low rating). However, most people tend to respect your Chess ability in increments. What I mean is how 1000 rating means little here, online, but 1200 seems a bit more respectable; but more people will respect a 1400 compared to a 1200; it is all subjective based on your rating and the rating of who is looking at yours. If I am rated 500, then 1000 looks pretty "good" to me, but a 1500 may not not respect the ability of even the 1000 player. Even at some rating like 2000, it is humbling to know how inferior your Chess ability many be viewed from a 2500 player's perspective. 

perspectives do change, when i was 13 i thought 1800 where top players, and 2000 where just straight up veterans. now i see 2000 players play and cringe a little at how many secondary moves they make lol.

Well, like someone else said, it depends on who you are asking.  Personally, if one's playing strength is above 1600, then I would consider that one to be above average (but nothing great).  If one's playing strength is in the high 1900s/low 2000s, then that's when I would start to consider that one to be a good chess player.  

<1000 =Beginners

1000-2000=Patzers

>2000= Good!!

Antonio, is this Joel Osteen looking guy leading his player directly into a "checkmate" win? Are we witnessing a moment of a miracle?.. Or are his guidelines of "good" will lead to a nonsense sacrifice...

I think a "good" chess player always plays according to a few elementary rules:

1-Make no big blunders, try to exploit every opponent's mistake

2-Follow the main opening principles, constraint opponent's mobility/control

3-Have a plan, try to guess opponent's plan

4-Always have some winning tactics/combinations in mind

I think the rating is not THAT important, but if you follow those principles the rating should follow.

It is more rewarding to lose against a strong player in a balanced endgame than quickly crush a low level player with poor moves.

The best player I've ever known taught me that the better you get at playing chess, the more you realize that you're terrible at playing chess.

You would say that, since you are rated 1977 in daily chess.

But in my opinion a player needs to be 2000 to be a good player.

If you want to be a good player in a group of people whom don't play chess as a hobby, something like 1000+ rating (maintained over hundreds of games) on chess.com is probably enough to never lose a game. For example I know I'm a novice compared to those who have played this game for years, but playing against my friends (who don't play chess other than very occasionally) I'm like a grandmaster. It's all about perspective.

I'm a good chess player compared to the average population, I'm a novice amongst chess players.

So?  There is a 14 yr old GM (not officially but an IM) 

OTB, the rule of thumb has been that a 1200 player knows enough of openings, middlegame, and endgame to be competent.  As a former high school chess coach and USCF Tournament Director, I'd go as low as 1100, so I think 1200 is a safe level.