At what elo are you no longer a bad player?

Sort:
Pawnlings

This has sort of devolved into people arguing their subjective belief about player strength which will obviously never lead anywhere. If you're going to question what a 'good' player is, you have to have some kind of concrete basis to start with. Otherwise you just keep spinning around subjective interpretations. I don't think Chess.com rating is a very good basis since there are so many inactive, duplicate, beginners that play a few games then stop, cheaters, etc. 

I would say your basis for 'good' should be whatever the average OTB rating is in your city/area and then evaluating each player as being above or below that median. Regardless, find a basis and then you'll find your answer. 

Ziryab
RedGirlZ wrote:

 

First of all you're making a subjective argument on your own ability and classing, then applying that to lower rated players to reach a conclusion. 

 

My argument was illustrated with an example. In the example, my hapless opponent was rated HIGHER than me and is a titled player.

My argument is that both of us proved ourselves to be very bad.

In reply to the OP's question, the answer is that to be no longer bad, you have to be a lot better than the people I play with.

Of course, by extension, those below us are likely equally horrid, maybe even more so, but that was never the crux of my argument.

You started this squabble by brushing off my view as subjective. Of course it is subjective. Subjective arguments have merit when they are grounded in evidence. An assertion can be objective, and yet wrong. It's the nature of the evidence that matters. You have been ignoring evidence (your word is "redundant") and hence misreading arguments.

You claim that you looked at my games, but you were posting your riposte less than a minute after it appeared. No one at my rating level is gonna absorb the nuances of the second game, the one that provoked your instant rebuttal, in less than a minute. I think it is fair to conclude that your skills are somewhat below that. It is likely that you cannot understand that game in an hour's study. My opponent and I spent an hour going through it after playing it for three. I'm still struggling to understand how the game became so difficult after the nice position I got from the opening.

The point in that game was to refute your assertion that I find lower rated players easy. Quite the contrary. Stronger players beat weaker players because they take them seriously. I know that we are both bad, but I assume otherwise concerning my opponent when we play. 

palmRace

0-1000 =  makes lots of Blunders

1000-1500 = 2 or 1 blunder

1500 - 1700 = 1 blunder and some mistakes

1700 - 1800 = no blunders some mistakes

1800 - 2000 = 1 or 2 mistakes

2000 - 2200 = only inaccuracies

2200 - 3000 = Perfect moves or excellent moves, and some good moves

3000 - 10,000 = Why are you reading this?

Ziryab
EnergizeMrSpock wrote:

 

It has nothing to do with beginners at 1200 already understanding the basics and therefore being "good" .

 By "basics", do you mean most of the rules about how the pieces move? Perhaps everything except en passant.

jr87
palmRace wrote:

0-1000 =  makes lots of Blunders

1000-1500 = 2 or 1 blunder

1500 - 1700 = 1 blunder and some mistakes

1700 - 1800 = no blunders some mistakes

1800 - 2000 = 1 or 2 mistakes

2000 - 2200 = only inaccuracies

2200 - 3000 = Perfect moves or excellent moves, and some good moves

3000 - 10,000 = Why are you reading this?

Agreed

angelmontgomery

What's the point because there already is a no longer bad player so, some certain people might not know anything so, yeah and i'm not trying to be mean but this is a holy ghost man you got  to be kidding me yall don't no anything about ,me okay ,okay.

angelmontgomery

I'm sorry about that other note i said and like i said. I'm not trying to be mean okay okay okay okay

Love you good people.thumbup.pngtongue.pngtear.pnggrin.png

angelmontgomery

I will say that if you don't use an engine it will be bad not trying to be mean

Yawn-khriztoph-Dodo

Bad is not subjective people. There is a community standard. If you are in the 75 percentile then in theory you would be better than 75 out of 100 people. Which is a positive outcome. If you are in the 46 percentile then you would have a negative outcome in theory. If good or bad is subjective than I'm better than Magnus.

Yawn-khriztoph-Dodo

MMTMIT wrote:

Yawn-khriztoph-Dodo wrote:

Bad is not subjective people. There is a community standard. If you are in the 75 percentile then in theory you would be better than 75 out of 100 people. Which is a positive outcome. If you are in the 46 percentile then you would have a negative outcome in theory. If good or bad is subjective than I'm better than Magnus.

Magnus Carlsen is better at chess than everyone. How can you be better than Carlsen?

MMTMIT wrote: Yawn-khriztoph-Dodo wrote: Magnus Carlsen is better at chess than everyone. How can you be better than Carlsen? Because being good/bad is subjective. Which it clearly is not.

blueemu
Yawn-khriztoph-Dodo wrote:

Bad is not subjective people. There is a community standard. If you are in the 75 percentile then in theory you would be better than 75 out of 100 people. Which is a positive outcome. If you are in the 46 percentile then you would have a negative outcome in theory. If good or bad is subjective than I'm better than Magnus.

Not true. "Good" and "Bad" are contextual terms, not absolutes.

Take the entire population of the Earth, and rank them in order of how good they are at brain surgery. Would you let somebody from the 51st percentile operate on your brain? Remember, less than one person out of 1000 has even received any training at brain surgery, let alone gotten good at it. So even somebody from the 98th percentile (the top 2% of the Earth's population) is totally incompetent at it.

Yawn-khriztoph-Dodo
blueemu wrote:
Yawn-khriztoph-Dodo wrote:

Bad is not subjective people. There is a community standard. If you are in the 75 percentile then in theory you would be better than 75 out of 100 people. Which is a positive outcome. If you are in the 46 percentile then you would have a negative outcome in theory. If good or bad is subjective than I'm better than Magnus.

Not true. "Good" and "Bad" are contextual terms, not absolutes.

Take the entire population of the Earth, and rank them in order of how good they are at brain surgery. Would you let somebody from the 51st percentile operate on your brain? Remember, less than one person out of 1000 has even received any training at brain surgery, let alone gotten good at it. So even somebody from the 98th percentile (the top 2% of the Earth's population) is totally incompetent at it.

I'm sorry but your analogy is totally wrong. You obviously misread my comment. Like I started previously " there is a community standard" hence, making it non-subjective. People can have an opinion, but that certainly doesn't make it true. People believe the earth is flat and because that is their subjective opinion makes it true? Absolutely not. The same goes with any rating system just like an elo. They can accurately predict the outcome of a game. The outcome has nothing to do with the persons opinion. Thus making it non-subjective. As stated before top 75 percentile will be better than 75 out of 100 people in theory. Giving you a positive outcome. 

KnightMover640

I don't know. Seems the question should maybe be "at which rating can I beat most casual non-competitive players?". Other than this it's pretty subjective. I'm now at 93.2 percentile for Daily chess. And I know I'm not good. I'm reading the board wrong and my play depends on how tired I am, how much time I have and also amount of wine. I also know how to improve but I know I won't be able to dedicate time to it due to different priorities.

forked_again
Ziryab wrote:

I know I'm not very good at chess, even though at blitz I seem to be better than 97.9% of people here.

If 97th percentile is not very good, then...

Golfing with a 1 to 2 stroke handicap is not very good.

Running a 3:07 marathon is not very good (men under 30)

A double bodyweight bench press is not very good.  

62 push ups is not very good

A 128 IQ is not very good

A salary of $200, 000/yr in the US is not very good.  

All the above are approximately 97th percentile values. 

 

spartakbarnsley
forked_again wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

I know I'm not very good at chess, even though at blitz I seem to be better than 97.9% of people here.

If 97th percentile is not very good, then...

Golfing with a 1 to 2 stroke handicap is not very good.

Running a 3:07 marathon is not very good (men under 30)

A double bodyweight bench press is not very good.  

62 push ups is not very good

A 128 IQ is not very good

A salary of $200, 000/yr in the US is not very good.  

All the above are approximately 97th percentile values. 

 

 

Exactly. Which is why I will repeat what I did earlier in this thread - that telling people they are not very good (or indeed claiming to be not very good) at something they are clearly exceptionally good at, is a pretty lame-assed thing to do.

Ziryab
forked_again wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

I know I'm not very good at chess, even though at blitz I seem to be better than 97.9% of people here.

If 97th percentile is not very good, then...

Golfing with a 1 to 2 stroke handicap is not very good.

Running a 3:07 marathon is not very good (men under 30)

A double bodyweight bench press is not very good.  

62 push ups is not very good

A 128 IQ is not very good

A salary of $200, 000/yr in the US is not very good.  

All the above are approximately 97th percentile values. 

 

 

Chess.com's percentile rankings are skewed somehow. My USCF percentile of slightly over 90 seems more realistic.


MatthewFreitag
Ziryab wrote:
forked_again wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

I know I'm not very good at chess, even though at blitz I seem to be better than 97.9% of people here.

If 97th percentile is not very good, then...

Golfing with a 1 to 2 stroke handicap is not very good.

Running a 3:07 marathon is not very good (men under 30)

A double bodyweight bench press is not very good.  

62 push ups is not very good

A 128 IQ is not very good

A salary of $200, 000/yr in the US is not very good.  

All the above are approximately 97th percentile values. 

 

 

Chess.com's percentile rankings are skewed somehow. My USCF percentile of slightly over 90 seems more realistic.


The sort of person who goes to a chess tournament is different from the sort of person who makes an online chess account.

 

Ziryab
MatthewFreitag wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
forked_again wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

I know I'm not very good at chess, even though at blitz I seem to be better than 97.9% of people here.

If 97th percentile is not very good, then...

Golfing with a 1 to 2 stroke handicap is not very good.

Running a 3:07 marathon is not very good (men under 30)

A double bodyweight bench press is not very good.  

62 push ups is not very good

A 128 IQ is not very good

A salary of $200, 000/yr in the US is not very good.  

All the above are approximately 97th percentile values. 

 

 

Chess.com's percentile rankings are skewed somehow. My USCF percentile of slightly over 90 seems more realistic.


The sort of person who goes to a chess tournament is different from the sort of person who makes an online chess account.

 

 

Reinforcing that a 97th percentile score in meaningless on a website.

MatthewFreitag
Ziryab wrote:
MatthewFreitag wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
forked_again wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

I know I'm not very good at chess, even though at blitz I seem to be better than 97.9% of people here.

If 97th percentile is not very good, then...

Golfing with a 1 to 2 stroke handicap is not very good.

Running a 3:07 marathon is not very good (men under 30)

A double bodyweight bench press is not very good.  

62 push ups is not very good

A 128 IQ is not very good

A salary of $200, 000/yr in the US is not very good.  

All the above are approximately 97th percentile values. 

 

 

Chess.com's percentile rankings are skewed somehow. My USCF percentile of slightly over 90 seems more realistic.


The sort of person who goes to a chess tournament is different from the sort of person who makes an online chess account.

 

 

Reinforcing that a 97th percentile score in meaningless on a website.

What I meant was he is 97th percentile among casual chess players. I believe the people who are unable to checkmate on this site are balanced out by the people who are gms.

The average player who goes to a tournament for chess is a serious player. They probably have a couple chess books, know a solid amount of opening theory, etc.

So while I would not say it's "meaningless" I would say it's not as significant as being 97th percentile USCF

pdve

1600 FIDE is the answer.