Is it okay to have 500 raiting ?
Sort:
I started at around 500 but I kept on going and didn’t give up and now I’m coming up on 1500
anartfuldodger wrote:
Wow, great!
Then there is still hope for me 😌
I started at around 500 but I kept on going and didn’t give up and now I’m coming up on 1500
Aug 14, 2019
0
#23
At 500, you're not a strong player, but you can still have fun.
And everyone starts at the very beginning. Look at all the games you won. There are people below you. Just keep at it, and you will improve. You'll probably never be a GM, but hardly anyone makes GM, and you don't need to be a GM to enjoy the game.
Aug 14, 2019
0
#24
MGleason wrote:
"At 500, you're not a strong player, but you can still have fun...
...but hardly anyone makes GM, and you don't need to be a GM to enjoy the game."
+1
GMs and IMs combined make up less than half of 1% of all chess players. As you know, chess is fun for way more of us than that! 
Aug 14, 2019
0
#25
Nope its not ok... When I started chess at 9, in a month I became at least 1300... Learned at 9 but barely played, I only became serious in chess a year ago... I climbed 1400 -1700... My next goal is 2000 when I get a coach.
Not that my rating is high because its not at all, but your rating is super low... Its like your randomly moving pieces...
Aug 14, 2019
0
#26
IMBacon wrote:
UncleHAL9000 wrote:
DaddyReza wrote:
UncleHAL9000 wrote:
Manatini wrote:
Savonarolla wrote:
Dgorjones wrote:
I just would like to know. Is that only me, who at the begging went that low.. or is it okay and many players also where here.
Everyone starts somewhere. It is absolutely okay to have any rating, including 500. A low rating just means lots of room for growth.
500 is normal for a real beginner... probably even a little high.
Some people who call themselves "beginners" aren't actually new to chess... but if someone has only recently learned the rules, and hasn't ever played a game like chess before (e.g. Shogi) then their rating would probably be lower than 500.
But in the beginning you can gain a lot of skill quickly. Going from beginner to 500 may certainly take less than 1 month. Going from 500 to 1000 will likely take most people less than 1 year.
But of course this eventually slows down, and eventually 100-200 points of improvement a year is good.
Its gonna take more than a year to get to 1000. I be bee winning more and get nothing for it. Yet when I lose they take the house.
Keep playing, practice a lot of tactics. It will definitely take less than a year. I started one year ago and my rating went below 500 but now it is much higher than 1000.Just practice lots of tactics, you will get past 1200 easily.
That's kinda fishy. There's no way you went from below 500 to where you are in one year.
There is nothing fishy at all about it. Online ratings mean squat. To many variables with online rating to determines someones true playing strength. The only online ratings that mean anything are those of the established titled players. There are also some long time members here, that aren't titled players, but have proven they know what they are talking about.
And you are neither. So what's your point?
Aug 14, 2019
0
#27
IMBacon wrote:
UncleHAL9000 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
UncleHAL9000 wrote:
DaddyReza wrote:
UncleHAL9000 wrote:
Manatini wrote:
Savonarolla wrote:
Dgorjones wrote:
I just would like to know. Is that only me, who at the begging went that low.. or is it okay and many players also where here.
Everyone starts somewhere. It is absolutely okay to have any rating, including 500. A low rating just means lots of room for growth.
500 is normal for a real beginner... probably even a little high.
Some people who call themselves "beginners" aren't actually new to chess... but if someone has only recently learned the rules, and hasn't ever played a game like chess before (e.g. Shogi) then their rating would probably be lower than 500.
But in the beginning you can gain a lot of skill quickly. Going from beginner to 500 may certainly take less than 1 month. Going from 500 to 1000 will likely take most people less than 1 year.
But of course this eventually slows down, and eventually 100-200 points of improvement a year is good.
Its gonna take more than a year to get to 1000. I be bee winning more and get nothing for it. Yet when I lose they take the house.
Keep playing, practice a lot of tactics. It will definitely take less than a year. I started one year ago and my rating went below 500 but now it is much higher than 1000.Just practice lots of tactics, you will get past 1200 easily.
That's kinda fishy. There's no way you went from below 500 to where you are in one year.
There is nothing fishy at all about it. Online ratings mean squat. To many variables with online rating to determines someones true playing strength. The only online ratings that mean anything are those of the established titled players. There are also some long time members here, that aren't titled players, but have proven they know what they are talking about.
And you are neither. So what's your point?
One more time...
There is nothing fishy at all about it. Online ratings mean squat. To many variables with online rating to determines someones true playing strength. The only online ratings that mean anything are those of the established titled players. There are also some long time members here, that aren't titled players, but have proven they know what they are talking about.
One more time...
And you are neither. So what's the point?
Aug 14, 2019
0
#28
IMbacon's elo rating didn't increase as much as he says it did... He was 1300 in bullet in dec 2017 and now hes 1500 in bullet rating... Also his first daily game took him to 1000, then every game after that took him way up in the ratings because he has only played 30 something games....
Aug 14, 2019
0
#29
its not actual improvement because he didn't play a bunch of games before that..
Aug 14, 2019
0
#30
IBRagCauseIWin wrote:
IMbacon's elo rating didn't increase as much as he says it did...
I am going to point out the obvious here. IMbacon has noted how little online ratings actually mean; it is likely that he is estimating his rating increase over the course of a year OTB and not online ratings. I believe that the more you improve your "real" rating(s) in person (especially OTB classical rating), then the less emphasis you put on online ratings. IMBacon is a strong player and I suspect has already come to this conclusion as well. @IBRagCauselWin online doesn't really mean that much, so why not just play casually and not worry about rating extremely much? If IMBacon says that his rating increased x amount in a year's time, then why not take him at his word?
