what rating is considered good? is 1450 good?
Sort:
Where is the point when u can call yourself decent at chess
Dec 31, 2020
0
#2
I would be HAPPY with 1775 to 1825 . . .
I'm 83 . . . Been playing since 1952, that's 68 years . . .
But it will never happen . . .
Dec 31, 2020
0
#3
Hi!
I would say you are at that point. 
Just keep improving!
-GChess325
Chess.com Moderator
Dec 31, 2020
0
#4
Depends on how old you are and how many years you've been playing the game.
Dec 31, 2020
0
#6
I am above 1450 . So I won't say it's a nice rating.... Since am stupid. And if a stupid person can be above 1450...then it isn't a good rating
Dec 31, 2020
0
#8
Tonya_Harding wrote:
No no, more like 2800+
Yeah that seems better
Anything that's above a crappy rating like mine is good...
A friend of mine once told me the better you are at chess the more you realize you aren't very good at chess. The next step always seems a bit bigger than the last. However, players only stagnate if they accept that there's nothing left to learn.
In general, as you improve, the bar for what constitutes a "blunder" keeps getting lower. At my level, for instance, I'll usually punch myself for missing any combination that's less than 4 moves deep. Positional errors, too.
For someone who has just learned to play, someone at 1450 seems invincible, but someone at that level will say the same of a player at 1850.
My advice is to focus on the next step, whatever step that may be. Don't be afraid to lose, stay determined to keep getting better.
Dec 31, 2020
0
#13
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Lol, you can't re-define "blunder" all by yourself. A blunder is a blunder, like playing a brilliant move that lets your opponent capture your Knight for free, just because you did not pay attention.
For beginners.. Leaving out a free piece is a blunder.... For advanced players not placing your pieces in a suitable square might be a blunder... That's what he meant I guess
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Lol, you can't re-define "blunder" all by yourself. A blunder is a blunder, like playing a brilliant move that lets your opponent capture your Knight for free, just because you did not pay attention.
For beginners.. Leaving out a free piece is a blunder.... For advanced players not placing your pieces in a suitable square might be a blunder... That's what he meant I guess
Not placing your piece on the correct square positionally is an inaccuracy. Blunder is objective and doesn't change with ratings
Dec 31, 2020
0
#15
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Lol, you can't re-define "blunder" all by yourself. A blunder is a blunder, like playing a brilliant move that lets your opponent capture your Knight for free, just because you did not pay attention.
For beginners.. Leaving out a free piece is a blunder.... For advanced players not placing your pieces in a suitable square might be a blunder... That's what he meant I guess
Not placing your piece on the correct square positionally is an inaccuracy. Blunder is objective and doesn't change with ratings
Thats what our point is. For our level it might be just an inaccuracy. At master level even a small inaccuracy becomes a blunder.
No, an inaccuracy remains an inaccuracy regardless of who is playing. Blunder and inaccuracy are two different things and have objective meanings.
Dec 31, 2020
0
#17
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
No, an inaccuracy remains an inaccuracy regardless of who is playing. Blunder and inaccuracy are two different things and have objective meanings.
Nah objective changes with respect to your strength. You make a certain mistake.... You can still recover from it. A grandmaster makes the same mistake, there are far lesser chances for him to recover.
A player at the 1000 level, for example, is not going to realize when he's got light-square weakness and really needs to keep the light square bishop and/or trade off the opponent's light square bishop.
The engine might treat the exchange/failure to exchange as an inaccuracy, but a player at my level will consider it a blunder outright. Those kinds of mistakes are usually unrecoverable, even if it takes the opponent 40 moves to punish it.
The objective meaning of "blunder" in chess means an unrecoverable loss of relative advantage. Advantage can't be lost until it is first perceived by the player in question. A 1000-level player might miss a win, but if that win involves a double sacrifice in a 10-move combination, would anyone call that a blunder?
Whatever is involved, be it a pattern mate, a king walk, even an exchange sacrifice, how good the player is determines what constitutes a blunder. Last year I baited an exchange sacrifice which I knew was good, hoping my opponent (a 2000-level player) wouldn't sac his rook for my knight. He did of course, and won the game as a result.
The Stockfish engine called it an "inaccuracy", but I played an unsound move, that I knew to be unsound, that resulted in a loss. No player below the 1500 level would consider it as such, but for me, that's a "??"-class mistake.
Dec 31, 2020
0
#19
Dsmith42 wrote:
A player at the 1000 level, for example, is not going to realize when he's got light-square weakness and really needs to keep the light square bishop and/or trade off the opponent's light square bishop.
The engine might treat the exchange/failure to exchange as an inaccuracy, but a player at my level will consider it a blunder outright. Those kinds of mistakes are usually unrecoverable, even if it takes the opponent 40 moves to punish it.
The objective meaning of "blunder" in chess means an unrecoverable loss of relative advantage. Advantage can't be lost until it is first perceived by the player in question. A 1000-level player might miss a win, but if that win involves a double sacrifice in a 10-move combination, would anyone call that a blunder?
Whatever is involved, be it a pattern mate, a king walk, even an exchange sacrifice, how good the player is determines what constitutes a blunder. Last year I baited an exchange sacrifice which I knew was good, hoping my opponent (a 2000-level player) wouldn't sac his rook for my knight. He did of course, and won the game as a result.
The Stockfish engine called it an "inaccuracy", but I played an unsound move, that I knew to be unsound, that resulted in a loss. No player below the 1500 level would consider it as such, but for me, that's a "??"-class mistake.
+1
I'll give you another example - take a look through the chapter on Emanuel Lasker in Kasparov's book My Great Predecessors.
In Kasparov's analysis, you'll often see moves by both Lasker and his various opponents which were thought to be blunders for years, and it took someone of Kasparov's skill, aided by computer analysis, to recognize the previously-advocated "correct" alternate moves were, in fact, no worse for Lasker and no better for his opponents.
The point here being, what constitutes a "blunder" at that level is beyond what even your typical GM can even start to comprehend.