"good" is probably 100 better than where you currently are
What Rating is Considered to be a Good Rating?
Sort:
ZeHaoChess hat geschrieben:
1Trashcan wrote:
Fr3nchToastCrunch wrote:
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)
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
Maybe on Lichess the rating system is a little bit difderent, because in lichess I played and won a few times against 1000-1200s and here I am 700-800
Apr 16, 2025
0
#24
I agree with what most people said.
I started barely knowing how the pieces moved, so around 200 or under.
Then I started to gain elo as I started to understand the game a little bit better and started to win some games.
Then I went to 300 to 450 in about a month by doing problems and actually making an effort.
Now I am stuck because I am very lazy at doing tactical problems because I get very impatient when I don't understand. I am sure if I work on that I can gain elo quicker.
But I also feel that I will be stuck at some point, I don't know where but I have to be honest with myself, I don't think I'll be abble to calculate 10 moves in advance, my brain is good at other things but this... not sure...
I think it depends how your brain works... And how involved you are.
Apr 16, 2025
0
#25
also people around 1500 who are you kidding you're better than 90% of the world population, so yes, you are good ! If you play a random player in your personnal circle you will probably beat them... I think it's also good to not only compare yourself to the higher rated players in the chess community 
CoralPlayingChess wrote:
What Rating is Considered to be a Good Rating?
Lichess Rating, Chess.com Rating, FIDE rating etc...
You doesn't seems new tho
Apr 16, 2025
0
#27
Here's some good guidelines, keeping in mind the average player is a bit below 700:
0-1000: beginner
1000-1300: lower intermediate
1300-1600: upper intermediate
1600-2000: advanced
2000+: expert/master
Apr 16, 2025
0
#28
outwittedyou wrote:
Here's some good guidelines, keeping in mind the average player is a bit below 700:
0-1000: beginner
1000-1300: lower intermediate
1300-1600: upper intermediate
1600-2000: advanced
2000+: expert/master
I'm no way an advanced/expert... 1800elo is when someone starts paying attention to everything in chess, and most 700elo are not chess 'players'. But if we judge with how much you learn, 1400elo is a preliminary stage when you studied some openings and did some puzzles. So if the chess.com elos you're showing were replaced by FIDE it's pretty fair enough.
Apr 16, 2025
0
#29
wrote:
By the way, I said about chess.com ratings. I don't care about other ratings
you should care
Apr 16, 2025
0
#30
wrote:
"good" is probably 100 better than where you currently are
better than anything I could've said *skull*
Apr 17, 2025
0
#32
wrote:
PointlessR wrote:
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
really? joined 24 days ago, you can't be serious
Apr 17, 2025
0
#33
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
wrote:
PointlessR wrote:
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
really? joined 24 days ago, you can't be serious
Joined 24 days ago ≠ learnt chess for 24 days ≠ cheater, thank you
Apr 17, 2025
0
#34
wrote:
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
wrote:
PointlessR wrote:
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
really? joined 24 days ago, you can't be serious
Joined 24 days ago ≠ learnt chess for 24 days ≠ cheater, thank you
im sorry, but joining a month ago is already bad, but the fact that you have played no games is ridiculous. You can't be making opinions.
Apr 17, 2025
0
#35
wrote:
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
wrote:
PointlessR wrote:
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
really? joined 24 days ago, you can't be serious
Joined 24 days ago ≠ learnt chess for 24 days ≠ cheater, thank you
I wasn't accusing you of cheating
outwittedyou wrote:
Here's some good guidelines, keeping in mind the average player is a bit below 700:
0-1000: beginner
1000-1300: lower intermediate
1300-1600: upper intermediate
1600-2000: advanced
2000+: expert/master
These are most accurate guidlines for the average player
1Trashcan wrote:
outwittedyou wrote:
Here's some good guidelines, keeping in mind the average player is a bit below 700:
0-1000: beginner
1000-1300: lower intermediate
1300-1600: upper intermediate
1600-2000: advanced
2000+: expert/master
These are most accurate guidlines for the average player
"Most accurate"?
Starting at 0?
Lumping all players 100-1000 together?
Not differentiating between online and real ratings at all?
Granted, it's not as awful as some of the other takes in this thread.
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.
... I mean, I kinda agree that...but more objectively if you learn a little bit of everything, you are a beginner, and also a 1800elo player. I would refer to myself as a beginner too, because I know there's 99% of knowledge that I haven't mastered yet. But a player who is relatively good at everything and doesn't have huge problems can be 2000+otb already. The more one has learnt the more one knows how much he hasn't learnt.