are1000 players bad?
Sort:
I recently reached 1000 in chess and I feel like the games I play have been so much easier compared to a 700 rated player i’ve played against so many 1000s who lose to different variance of the scholars mate what is happening?
I’ve only just gone up in rating in like the last month or so been sitting near 700 for awhile
Its all relative, if you're 300 higher then 1000 probably is weak
But your preferred time control seems to be 3/0 which is wayyyyy too fast for me
whiteknight1968 wrote:
Its all relative, if you're 300 higher then 1000 probably is weak
But your preferred time control seems to be 3/0 which is wayyyyy too fast for me
Yeah if you want to improve play rapid.
1000 is still pretty bad at chess in the grand scheme of things. They're just slightly less bad than a 700. Good and bad are both relative. 1200 isn't very good but a 1200 would destroy a 700-800 in most games. I would obliterate a 1200. A 2200 would obliterate me. Magnus would obliterate us all.
A good rating depends on the reason you play chess. If you are a casual player then 1200 is a decent elo. If you want to go professional then 2000+ is practically necessary. It can also depend on the age range, although not as much. Still, a 13 year old casual player is unlikely to be higher rated than a 30 year old professional.
Depends on your goals with chess. 1000 is pretty good for someone who doesnt take chess too seriously and is playing for fun. I would say real hard chess, and fun in my opinion, starts at around 1800, thats when one single pawn in the early-mid game loses you the match. Its pretty sweaty. At around 1500, chess is pretty different than 1000.
So its all about goals and perspectives tbf. There isnt a correct answer to this question
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.