What Rating is Considered to be a Good Rating?

What Rating is Considered to be a Good Rating?
Lichess Rating, Chess.com Rating, FIDE rating etc...

FIDE obviously.

In my opinion: lower than 1000 are low rated. 1000-1500 - advanced low rated players. 1500-2000 - average chess player. 2000-2250 - my average opponent. 2250+ - pro players. It's in Rapid. I don't play other time controls seriously, so I won't judge other time controls

By the way, I said about chess.com ratings. I don't care about other ratings

my rapid rating is around 450 but I think I play good I use a lot of strategy and tactics I need help my rating is so low how do I get it higher

There is an objective criterion for this. One would probably agree that players below 2000 fide are class A,B, etc; 2000 fide is expert, and 2200 and above is master. But subjective opinions may vary, for top GMs, maybe anyone below FM or IM is not too good at chess. But for me as a low-rated player, everyone plays good chess

I think at least above 1500 is intermediate because that is when you need to learn much more because the average opponent doesn't blunder much more often than one at a lower rating. This is just my opinion. Just because you are low, does not mean you're bad. (This is lichess and chess.com rating)

You shouldn't really take your rating seriously until you've played for a few months. But after that...

<300: You should probably quit right now, especially if you've taken lessons and are still here, because chess is simply not for you.

301-500: You're struggling a bit, but you shouldn't be here long if you try.

501-700: Where most beginners start.

701-1000: Below average.

1001-1200: Around average, despite what most people say.

1201-1500: Getting good.

1501-1800: Great

1801-2000: Advanced

2001-2500: Master

2501-2700: Grandmaster

2701-3000: Super Grandmaster

>3000: Stockfish (not really)

Really? Quit of you’re not good? This is the worst take I’ve seen yet

300 elo is not playing chess seriously... I would even describe chess as a pilgrimage and there's no 'good enough', if one player has to be objectively 'good' at least he/she should know a little bit of everything, which makes the limit skyrocket to 1800-2000 if not higher. So essentially somewhere below 1200-1300 people are experiencing and enjoying chess rather than taking it seriously

An average person (with good intuition) would be about 800.

An average person who plays/studies chess often would be about 1200 (give or take 200)

My rating ratings:

U200 - total noob, no strategy
500 - beginner, but slightly better
800 - average person
1000 - better than average person
1200 - average dedicated chess player
1500 - really good dedicated player.
1800 - advanced
2000 - potential to be master
2200 - professional / master
2500 - GM
2800 - Among the best on the world
3000 - THE best in the world
3200 - good computer.
3500 - better than average computer
3800 - really powerful computer
4000+ - impossible.

argle fargle

ZeHaoChess said:

300 elo is not playing chess seriously... I would even describe chess as a pilgrimage and there's no 'good enough', if one player has to be objectively 'good' at least he/she should know a little bit of everything, which makes the limit skyrocket to 1800-2000 if not higher. So essentially somewhere below 1200-1300 people are experiencing and enjoying chess rather than taking it seriously
——————-
That’s not really related to what I said, but sure.

I just said that it’s stupid to think you should quit if you are not good at chess.

You said that (paraphrasing) people below 1300 enjoy chess rather than serious play, which I guess I do agree with in a way.

But surely if a player is having fun like you say below 1300 that’s less reason to quit??

I was referring to the fact that the person I was responding to said:
‘You should probably quit right now(at 300), especially if you've taken lessons and are still here, because chess is simply not for you.’

Which when I look at it just says, ‘if you want to get better by learning with lessons but are still low rated, quit.’

(Sorry this is a long post lol)

depends in ur fide.... In standard anything above 1600 is considered really good

but 1000 is being in top 20 % of all players. shouldn't it be called above average if you are better than 80 % majority?
even 700 isn't stastically below average since it's still in the top 50 %
english isn't my first language so maybe I just misunderstand the meaning of word average. sry

In chess.com most people come not to play chess but to do other things like social contact or chasing after internet chess memes. For instance 1600elo on chess.com is top 2%, but on lichess this figure is somewhere around top 40%, and what brings you to top 2% is a elo as high as 2300. I don't believe there's a 700 elo inflation out there. So if it's average chess.com users that's probably around 700 elo, but if you mean average players...2000+? maybe

2500 elo for a beginner sounds about right...

2000 at least, people want to hear there good but they are not.

I mean if we are rating subjectively. To Magnus, anyone that is not a GM is a complete beginner. meaning you all suck, there I said it.