Am I really that terrible?

I'm not going into detail here, but sometimes higher level players really tick me off in this community sometimes.  Apparently they came out of the womb GM's and never blunder.

I play scholastic chess, and I do not claim to be good.  Online, my blitz rating is in the 1500,'s.  Over the board, I am 1045 at the time being.  I once searched "what's a good elo", and according to one post I read, players 0-1000 are so bad they essentially play moves at random, and players 1100-1200 are only a step above them.  I feel like I am much improved since when I started chess, and even then, my skill was not THAT bad; my moves had some amount of logic.

I don't know, I'm just curious.  Be honest with me, is my rating terrible?  I intend to maybe post games later on as well.  Maybe get tips.... 

That's all.  Thanks for listening to me whine about my skill, or lack thereof. 

I wouldn't trust online ratings if I were you. If you look at any old thread, you can see that many high rated posters have long since been banned. There are also people who set a very high rating when they register, then lose one game and voila, they're rated 1800. Then they become active on the forums and offer smug advice to beginners. There are many ways to make it look like they were born grandmasters. 

In response to IMBacon, I do play slow chess in real life, just not online.   I also play a fair amount of casual games without clocks.

"... for those that want to be as good as they can be, they'll have to work hard.
Play opponents who are better than you … . Learn basic endgames. Create a simple opening repertoire (understanding the moves are far more important than memorizing them). Study tactics. And pick up tons of patterns. That’s the drumbeat of success. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (December 27, 2018)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/little-things-that-help-your-game
https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-start-out-in-chess
https://www.chess.com/news/view/a-new-years-resolution-improve-your-chess-with-new-lessons
"... In order to maximize the benefits of [theory and practice], these two should be approached in a balanced manner. ... Play as many slow games (60 5 or preferably slower) as possible, ... The other side of improvement is theory. ... This can be reading books, taking lessons, watching videos, doing problems on software, etc. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf
"... If it’s instruction, you look for an author that addresses players at your level (buying something that’s too advanced won’t help you at all). This means that a classic book that is revered by many people might not be useful for you. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2015)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever
Here are some reading possibilities that I often mention:
Simple Attacking Plans by Fred Wilson (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090402/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review874.pdf
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Simple-Attacking-Plans-77p3731.htm
Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev (1957)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf
The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played by Irving Chernev (1965)
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/most-instructive-games-of-chess-ever-played/
http://store.doverpublications.com/0486273024.html
Winning Chess by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld (1948)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093415/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review919.pdf
Back to Basics: Tactics by Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708233537/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review585.pdf
https://www.chess.com/article/view/book-review-back-to-basics-tactics
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5856bd64ff7c50433c3803db/t/5895fc0ca5790af7895297e4/1486224396755/btbtactics2excerpt.pdf
Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014)
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/openings-for-amateurs/
https://www.mongoosepress.com/catalog/excerpts/openings_amateurs.pdf

Chess Endgames for Kids by Karsten Müller (2015)
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/chess-endgames-for-kids/
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Chess_Endgames_for_Kids.pdf
A Guide to Chess Improvement by Dan Heisman (2010)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708105628/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review781.pdf
Studying Chess Made Easy by Andrew Soltis (2009)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090448/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review750.pdf
Seirawan stuff:
http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/bo_beginner/ev_winning_chess.asp?KATID=BO&ID=BO-Beginner
http://www.nystar.com/tamarkin/review1.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627132508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen173.pdf
https://www.chess.com/article/view/book-review-winning-chess-endings
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708092617/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review560.pdf

I think I'm terrible-er than pretty much everyone.  Play for love of the game.

Bear in mind that this site has so many subtle cheaters and engine users that you can't take it seriously.

According to engine analysis I have played SO many games where my opponents play horribly in the opening then suddenly start playing perfectly.

It's no wonder my OTB rating is 150 points higher than my online one.

1500 blitz is a respectable rating in the sense that you probably really like chess, you've studied it and played it, probably at least for a few years. So you're "one of us" so to speak.

Whether or not it's a "terrible" rating is up to you. Usually it depends on what your goals are and how strong your friends are. If most of your friends are 1200 and your goal is 1600, then you're probably pretty good. If most of your friends are 2000+ and your goal is to get a title, then 1500 is terrible.

+1

Other than the arrogant few that stand out, most chess players often feel like they are terrible (regardless how high the rating becomes). Why? I believe it has to do with the nature of chess. Every subtle thing in chess matters, but are you good enough to realize how to take advantage of that subtle point and eventually convert a win out of it? 

Take a pair of 1000 players or even lower: it is common that one side will blunder and then the other side will blunder and this goes on for most of the game! White just hangs the Knight ... but wait Black missed it and plays another move ... wait Black's move allowed a discovered attack on their Queen ... and White just missed it  This is comical when narrated that way, but is hanging a Queen a big deal? Ironically, it isn't as big of a deal as many want to think because the opponent missed it too; it is like my mistake was canceled out by my opponent's inability to find it and exploit it. Now compare this with a pair of GMs playing. They seldom even hang pawns, never mind pieces or Queens. However, the same thing happens at GM level as in the first example. The only difference is that the GM "mistakes" are far more subtle. A beginner mistake is hanging mate in 1 or something, but a GM mistake is something smaller like not having all of the pieces as well coordinated as the opponent's pieces, or having slightly less space in the position. Also, the GM subtleties are tougher to quantify. I can loosely quantify a beginner hanging a Queen as giving up 9 points of material, but how do I quantify piece coordination? Computers have various ways they try, but it is difficult to put a value on more abstract subtle points that GMs use to win games all the time. 

It is obvious to most everyone when a 500 rated player blunders mate in 1, but it is slightly less obvious when a 1000 player walks into a potential Bishop skewer. Is falling for such a simple tactic that big of a deal? If you are a 500 rated player who has not yet learned the tactical vision to see this, then it doesn't matter much; a 1000 player falling for this might not be a huge deal either (especially if the opponent doesn't notice), but it is likely that a 1200 play will find that skewer that the 1000 player overlooked. If you see where I am going with this, then you may be on the road to GM  Where I am going with this is that EVERY CHESS PLAYER overlooks things and so an observer sees your play as trash if they believe they can exploit it. GM Magnus Carlsen doesn't really take any player too seriously unless they are like top 50 in the world or  something. Why? There are many strong GMs not in the top 50. It is because he sees their subtle mistakes and is confident that he can exploit them (and he is often right). In the same as a 1500 looking at a 1000 player play a game as it is for a 2500 looking down at the play of a 2000. 

If you are humble enough to realize this, then you constantly feel terrible at chess - despite improving simply because you are getting better and in this process of improving: you are noticing subtle mistakes in your play and others.

With that said 1500 is respectable. Look at the chess.com percentile chart and feel good about your chess.com rating. As long as you keep in mind that everything has to do with rating pools. I am sure you would feel pretty good if you could beat everyone you know in chess. Does this make you a chess prodigy? Maybe not. I know some players that could beat almost everyone they knew and were only about 1000 or less chess ability! A 1500 in a pool of 2000 players may feel "terrible" while a 500 player in a pool of 200 players may feel pretty good about their chess. As your rating climbs you will meet more people who were the best in chess at x. Perhaps, 1500 players were all successful chess players in their neighborhood - but they will then need to improve and adapt to the pool of club players, or tournament players, or titled players and so on. 

One other point is also how "good" or "decent" may be respectable by most, but nothing to write home about. Let's assume that someone is rated at the 90 percentile (what rating pool or time control is not relevant for this point). 90 percentile sounds pretty good, right? They can win against 90 players out of 100 at random; that sounds really accomplished! Now let's assume that this 90 percentile player enters a tournament with 100 players entered: on average they will place 10th in the tournament. That sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Well, what if there are only prizes for the top 5? Only for 1st and the runner up? Only for 1st? That is how competition often is. Even if you are a "good" and "respectable" rated player, you may not be entirely successful chess-wise.

In conclusion, after explaining how "terrible" 1500 chess rating (or others) can be - I think that 1500 is a solid rating. 1500 means that you have just a little bit left to learn ... but then a 1600 feels the same way ... and a 1700 feels that way too ... ironically a 2700 probably feels that same way too - as if they only have a little bit more to learn. That is because the more you learn in chess, the more you learn you did no know and the more questions it poses. It is a feeling that doesn't go away; it is just the nature of chess (and many other competitive things too). 1500 is a rating to be proud of though; many chess players never reach 1500 rating/ability even online! Just don't let 1500 go to your head either because a 2000 may be looking down at your 1500 and a 2500 may be looking down on that 2000. The grass is always greener type of thing all over again.

Your blitz rating is higher then mine, so from my subjective standpoint you are a great player.

It really depends on your chess goals. If you're happy being the best in the family, in your friends circle, Congratulations. Like me... I'm happy beating patzers with as much as queen odds. 

Well, it's pretty much a personal thing, but I've reached 1100 in dailies here and, looking at my spreadsheet for the games I play, I win around 25-30% of the games, hence, I'm worse than terrible, I'm just a useless chess player. How long one can keep going after owning to that fact is totally down to personality. For me, not long at all.

I also feel I am absolutely terrible... And the more I practice and learn and study, the more I realise I know nothing... and that the amount of knowledge I have the impression my opponents have is infinite...
So... I'll go slowly... and will keep working... until it pays !

I actually went backwards. The more I studied, the more tactics I did, the worse I play and the worse my results became. Then I got an IM to analyse my game and propose a study plan and new repertoire, and promptly lost another 10% of my ranking points.

Hahaha Brilliant ! SOunds really encouraging !

My £.02, I think there is a huge discrepancy between the learning methods commonly parroted and what you really need to do to learn in a specific environment like online playing. Most methods are advised based on gameplay in controlled environments (like Clubs, or specific groups at same level and learning from similar procedures) not for the wild west like here.

The solution? If you find it just let me know! :-)

"... If it’s instruction, you look for an author that addresses players at your level (buying something that’s too advanced won’t help you at all). This means that a classic book that is revered by many people might not be useful for you. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2015)

https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever

I was mainly referring to my over-the-board rating, but thank you for the input.

Your OTB rating is low. Your blitz rating is good.

+1 I like this answer too

Consider the following. In the US, the USCF keeps percentiles of all the players. 63% is 900 rating. Since you're a scholastic player, that would be 80% percentile for a 900 rating. You aren't bad at all, don't worry about it.