Ok, at this point I'm not sure if you are some kind of troll, but I'm gonna unfollow this thread anyway. Goodbye!
What did I do now. All I did was ask a question. What does ANY rating mean without respect to other rating? More people who can't answer even basic questions. Go figure.
It doesn't mean anything on it's own.
Than how did they "rate" the first chess tournaments. Did they just set all newcomers at 1000 and see what happened? What's the default, baseline rating?
There was a chess.com classic thread a while back called 'if you know'. It's starting to feel like that. But I'll keep going.
The ratings judge people relative to the player pool. It doesn't matter if the average rating is 2000 or 4000.
You have to get nasty? Why the hell are u posting then?
Example: A 1000 player has no clue what he is doing OR a 1000 player is average, or a 1000 player is a genius..etc.
As I said, it's relative. There's no way of accurately judging something using language like that. You could look at rating percentiles to judge which rating is average.