That is of course not related to what is statistically considered to be a good player.
At what elo are you no longer a bad player?
Sort:
I think one's own rating tends to color people's views. But, I think my scale above is quite reasonable. 1600 is intermediate, 1800 is good and 2000 is expert. I think it hold statistically also.
At 3000+
1900 in Russia
LMAO@Ahphoey, you are funny on youtube comments as well
Sep 13, 2017
0
#47
FaceCrusher wrote:
MickinMD wrote:
In over-the-board games, a player rated 1200 or higher generally has a strong understanding basic principles, tactics, and strategies.
A player rated 1000 is on the verge and I personally consider such a person a good player.
I actually agree with this. Being on a chess website, we get used to hearing about Nakamura, Carlsen, Curana, and the big dogs. We start to think of 2300 and 2400 as kinda low. And you hear people say anyone under like 1800 or even 1500 is almost a pure novice. There is a bit of a distortion of frame when you're in the environment and get used to hearing freakish ratings like 3100 on bullet or something.
People who know how to play chess, and can beat people in their classroom and most or all of the people at work, or the science teacher who is pretty good at chess and hardly anyone can beat is usally around 600. By the time a 850-900 he can beat the better part of most people he'll ever face in regular setting, and usually pretty easily. A 1000 level player will run through his whole high school like a wrecking machine, destroy the science teacher who no one has ever heard of losing, and pretty much beat any "Hey, you should play my uncle Ralph, he's really good, he used to be like Prison champion" challenge he'll face. They will win against anyone casually, and only lose every once in a while to a practiced player if they overlook a big tactic.
By the time someone is 1200, he's going to wreck anyone at school, at work, and any "Hey Play my Uncle Ralph" he'll come against, ever. That's the time you'll beat anyone who isn't of practiced strength. He's above any casual player, any uncle Ralph, and only loses to people who congregate together for the purpose of playing chess. 1000-1200 you can say is "pretty good" at chess in any regular setting in society.
I'd say 1800 is the level where things break off. That's where you can go anywhere and know with confidence if you ever get challenged to a chess game, you're going to win in any reasonable setting. All the "Uncle Ralphs" and "oh But my buddy Mark is really good he's was like champion" will get destroyed. He's a god in the Casual World. No one will beat an 1800 who hasn't put a fairly meaningful part of their hobby life toward chess, or some genius prodigy outlier.
What this guy said.
It's actually an interesting question.if we're talking about chess.com ratings I'd say about 1500 because that's when your in about the top 30%
Ashvapathi wrote:
I think one's own rating tends to color people's views. But, I think my scale above is quite reasonable. 1600 is intermediate, 1800 is good and 2000 is expert. I think it hold statistically also.
But that's already among practice, active tournament players, who make up a small fraction of the chess players in the world. We never can know how many, but most estimates put the number of worldwide people who play chess at 600 Million. One of the most widely played games in the world.
A 1200 could crush most of them. The way I look at it, it's not the case that everyone is bad at something unless they are at the very elite 1-2% level. Those top people are just great. I try to put things in perspective of the total population who enjoy chess. Of course, there will never be a way to define these things for certain. Again, it's largely relative to the pool and environment. I remember before the Norway Supertournament, Aronian and Carlsen were making fun of Anish Giri in light hearted banter and good fun...but doing so none the less because he was the "weak" one. Giri, a 2762 FIDE.... a freak who sees things we will never conceive on the board, gets made fun of... because even a 2762 is kinda weak to utter mutants like Carlsen and Aronian. So I'd say, by the time your 1000, you're fairly decent, because you'll beat just about anyone who "Knows how to play chess" and even most people who "Play Chess." By 1200, you're able to handle yourself in most public places you'll be at, and by 1400, you'll be the guy that they say "Oh my god, he beat my uncle Ralph, no one ever beat my uncle Ralph!" I'd say by 1600, you'd never lose another chess game in your life unless it's at a tournament, or to a person who's played in tournaments (or, circa 2010-2012ish and beyond, active online practiced players)
I feel like 2000 was an important milestone--and after which I would have to 'take it seriously' to move up much further. Expert is a good "first title" for a reason.
I liked the quote I read once. If you ask a Russian how good they are at chess and they say "not very good", they mean about 1600. If you ask an American, it means "they know how the horsey moves".
id say someone between 1300-1500 hundred because im in their right now and these games can get pretty intense. id also say for the people saying well you start at 1200 so clearly its rookie stuff. i got dropped to like 700 when i started because i didn't know anything bout chess except that i could beat my friends. it takes awhile to get to 1200+ unless your a good experienced migrating player from a new site or something and have achieved it all before.
May 28, 2019
0
#54
At what rating are you no longer a bad player?
Dunno, but I haven't reached it yet.
I'd say that when you dont lose to tactical chess, but positional chess, you're better than most
May 28, 2019
0
#57
tondeaf wrote:
I liked the quote I read once. If you ask a Russian how good they are at chess and they say "not very good", they mean about 1600. If you ask an American, it means "they know how the horsey moves".
Living in Russia, I can tell you that's absolutely correct. In the UK, finding a casual player who can get past the first 15-20 moves without dropping material against me is pretty much impossible. In Russia, any casual player will give you a very tough game, and often beat you. They are also very fond of drunken blitz here. The number of times I've played somebody who can barely stand up, but once they get behind a chessboard, they can still make logical moves is astounding!
May 28, 2019
0
#58
I once talked to this guy at a chess tournament. He was rated 2251, and he told me anybody below 2200 was an amateur. Convenient.
So, based on his comment to me, I have made a helpful table.
>1000: U sux bro. Do you even chess?
1000-1200: u still sux bro, just slightly yes.
1200-1400: a chess beginner who has some faint idea of the rules/way pieces move.
1400-1600: a chess beginner with some rudimentary opening knowledge.
1600-2000: Probably has played a bit of chess. Maybe.
2000-2200: Just an amateur. Average joe. Simpleton. Likes the game, but isn't good at it.
2200-2250: Slightly better than average.
2251: God on Earth/chess genius. Has mastered the game.
2252-2400: Officially knows chess. Not exactly "good" but might be OK.
2400-2600: A fairly decent player. Probably has studied openings a bit.
2600-2800: Now we're talking. A person in these ratings is pretty decent.
2800-3000: A solid player.
3000+: A good player.
May 28, 2019
0
#59
MatthewFreitag wrote:
I once talked to this guy at a chess tournament. He was rated 2251, and he told me anybody below 2200 was an amateur. Convenient.
So, based on his comment to me, I have made a helpful table.
>1000: U sux bro. Do you even chess?
1000-1200: u still sux bro, just slightly yes.
1200-1400: a chess beginner who has some faint idea of the rules/way pieces move.
1400-1600: a chess beginner with some rudimentary opening knowledge.
1600-2000: Probably has played a bit of chess. Maybe.
2000-2200: Just an amateur. Average joe. Simpleton. Likes the game, but isn't good at it.
2200-2250: Slightly better than average.
2251: God on Earth/chess genius. Has mastered the game.
2252-2400: Officially knows chess. Not exactly "good" but might be OK.
2400-2600: A fairly decent player. Probably has studied openings a bit.
2600-2800: Now we're talking. A person in these ratings is pretty decent.
2800-3000: A solid player.
3000+: A good player.
As has been mentioned on her before - telling someone they suck at something they are obviously exceptional at - not cool.
Over 2000 is probably the equivalent of a solid lower league footballer in England. Having played with a guy in my youth who played in the lower leagues in England, I can confidently say that he was an insanely good footballer. He could do things with a ball that appeared to defy the laws of physics. Yet he only every made two substitute appearances for Mansfield Town. It just goes so show how incomprehensibly good people who play in the Premier League are. The same goes for the 2600+ GM's.
May 28, 2019
0
#60
spartakbarnsley wrote:
MatthewFreitag wrote:
I once talked to this guy at a chess tournament. He was rated 2251, and he told me anybody below 2200 was an amateur. Convenient.
So, based on his comment to me, I have made a helpful table.
>1000: U sux bro. Do you even chess?
1000-1200: u still sux bro, just slightly yes.
1200-1400: a chess beginner who has some faint idea of the rules/way pieces move.
1400-1600: a chess beginner with some rudimentary opening knowledge.
1600-2000: Probably has played a bit of chess. Maybe.
2000-2200: Just an amateur. Average joe. Simpleton. Likes the game, but isn't good at it.
2200-2250: Slightly better than average.
2251: God on Earth/chess genius. Has mastered the game.
2252-2400: Officially knows chess. Not exactly "good" but might be OK.
2400-2600: A fairly decent player. Probably has studied openings a bit.
2600-2800: Now we're talking. A person in these ratings is pretty decent.
2800-3000: A solid player.
3000+: A good player.
As has been mentioned on her before - telling someone they suck at something they are obviously exceptional at - not cool.
Over 2000 is probably the equivalent of a solid lower league footballer in England. Having played with a guy in my youth who played in the lower leagues in England, I can confidently say that he was an insanely good footballer. He could do things with a ball that appeared to defy the laws of physics. Yet he only every made two substitute appearances for Mansfield Town. It just goes so show how incomprehensibly good people who play in the Premier League are. The same goes for the 2600+ GM's.
I was joking
It is entirely relative to the player answering and their rating. I am 1850 online and I don't consider myself to be good. I don't consider many 2000s to be good. To me maybe just above 2200 would be good