Rating Boundaries

Good and bad are relative.
Good = better than me.
Bad = worse than me.

A good rapid player depends on where you live and who you're comparing yourself to. Even at 1000-1200 rapid you'll beat most amateurs IRL quite easily at least here in the USA. Most people categorize something like ~

Beginner 0-1200

Intermediate 1300-1800

Advanced/Strong 1800-2000

God amongst peasants 2100+

Thank you

0-400 new to chess 400-600 beginner 600-1000 casual player 1000-1300 advanced beginner 1300-1600 intermediate grade 1 1600-1900 intermediate grade 2 1900-2100 advanced 2100-2300 expert 2300+ strength of a CM or better, would be titled or close to getting titled in OTB... So to answer your question, I'd say "Experts" are without a doubt good players (2100+) but when compared to your average chess player even intermediates are pretty good (1600+)

"Good" is entirely subjective. There is no valid answer to your question. 

When you are a 400-level player, 800 players seem good.  When you are 800, 1200 seems good.  When you are 1200, 1600 ...etc.  Basically, take your current rating and add 400.  Those players are good.  For Magnus, a "good" rapid player would be Stockfish or Lc0.

I don't disagree with this, but I think a player at any level can  look at players at lower levels and consider them "good" as well. A scratch golfer would still say a 6 handicap is a "good" golfer, for example. As a humble 1100, of course I think of a 1500 as "good". But I also think of an 800 as "good". The fact that he is a lower level than I should not disqualify him from being good, even in my estimation. The term "good" has no real meaning. Anyone who plays, learns, improves, and occasionally wins could be called good. We have numbers to specify further so that we can match players appropriately.  Personally, I don't think we should waste our time on the subject of what rating is "good" or what rate of improvement is "good". 

It's like saying, "I'm 5'-11" tall. Is that good?"  (I'm actually 6'2". Is that better?) [Insert eye roll here]

The point was not that you are looking down on other players, but rather being self-critical.  Once you consider yourself to be "good", there is no reason to continue improving.  The same thing happens in fitness: once you start feeling you are "good", you stop trying as hard and likely plateau.

I was trying to add to your point, not refute it. Sorry if that didn't come across. I totally agree with you. Same page.  But this is just another example of how hard it is to apply the word "good" to chess....or fitness and have it be meaningful.

No worries.  I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't trying to indicate that people are being looked down upon.  Rather, if you are trying to improve, you are never "good".

Another way to look at the question is it is effectively asking, "When can I stop trying to improve?"

For chess.com Rapid ratings, this is my classification:

0-500: New to chess

500-1000: Low Beginner

1000-1400: High Beginner

1400-1800: Intermediate

1800-2100: Advanced

2100-2300: Expert

2300+: Master

This classification corresponds almost exactly to the USCF one at the top end and the FIDE one at the bottom. There is also a logical reason for each division.

For example, ratings below 500 are classified as "New to chess" since, even though it might take many people a bit of time to surpass it, for most, simply learning about the fundamentals and getting familiar with them is sufficient to cross it. This way, most people don't stay at this rating for more than a month if they are instructed properly.

1400 is my threshold for an intermediate player because it is at this level that players begin to have a comprehensive grasp of the fundamentals, and the games begin to look "normal" a good fraction of the time for the first time. 1300-1400 is also the minimum rating at which the players have a non-negligible shot against experienced (i.e. advanced) players.

And around 2100 is the first time that most players have a more or less accurate positional understanding, so that losses in which one side gets completely decimated without making any blunders become rare. Therefore, it seems fair to set this as the threshold for expert players.

I think those classifications are valid and helpful. And nowhere in there does the word "good" appear.  There's no value judgement......  

Well, you could argue that "expert" and "master" carry a value judgement, but it is earned through a lot of hours of hard work and dedication. I don't think anyone would object.

As a player rated 800 rapid I can agree with this. If I play with a 1200 rated player I would likely lose and they understand the game a lot better than I do so I would consider them a good player.