me
What by definition is a “good chess player�
Sort:
drmrboss wrote:
<1000 =Beginners
1000-2000=Patzers
>2000= Good!!
Are you talking about FIDE, USCF, CFC, or something else? If it is FIDE or USCF, I am more than halfway from bottom patzer to top patzer in the high 1600's with both. I don't have CFC, and I don't know of any other.
drmrboss wrote:
<1000 =Beginners
1000-2000=Patzers
>2000= Good!!
I think anything below 2700 is quite exceptionally terrible.
sadkid2008 wrote:
drmrboss wrote:
<1000 =Beginners
1000-2000=Patzers
>2000= Good!!
I think anything below 2700 is quite exceptionally terrible.
says the person who has a FIDE of barely over half of my estimated after my first and only FIDE rated tournament so far... Did you know there are only about 45 "good" active players in the world? I'd say you are good if you can solve:
apotosaurus wrote:
sadkid2008 wrote:
drmrboss wrote:
<1000 =Beginners
1000-2000=Patzers
>2000= Good!!
I think anything below 2700 is quite exceptionally terrible.
says the person who has a FIDE of barely over half of my estimated after my first and only FIDE rated tournament so far... Did you know there are only about 45 "good" active players in the world? I'd say you are good if you can solve:
That's not so hard to solve. I have been to one fide tournament as well, and I would say that I am still better than you in classical games. No offense.
Yeah, but you wouldn't solve it in a real game. You would just play ...Nc5, not assuming any tactical possibilities, especially because your opponent is higher rated and you have already made 1 dubious move and 1 bad move in the actual game. Even a GM said in the position he would play ...Nc5.
+ did you read my whole comment? There are only about 45 active good players!! I just realized how good bold looks in comments -- and italics... where's underline?
apotosaurus wrote:
+ did you read my whole comment? There are only about 45 active good players!! I just realized how good bold looks in comments -- and italics... where's underline?
Yes, there are. So? I don't think it should be easy to become good.
Apr 21, 2018
0
#30
Geometric652 wrote:
I’ve been thinking recently if I would count as a “good chess player”. Is it preference or a general rank?
A player who is at least 200 rating points above my best is a good player.
Apr 22, 2018
0
#31
Howhorseymove wrote:
I think for the average person a rating of 1800 or higher is a good player. At 1800 or higher, you can beat the majority of casual chess players off the street. In terms of world class good, I think the minimum would have to be 2400 and above.
Carlsen treats anyone U2700 with no respect. He plays trash openings and tries to blow them off the board. And he usually succeeds!
Dsmith42 escreveu:
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.
All too true!
Apr 22, 2018
0
#33
As someone else said, "Am I good at tactics?" The computer says no.
We now know that humans just aren't that good at chess.
Don't worry about labels. That's all I have to say.