Chess Ratings & Improvement on Chess.com

I'm sorry but if the average is only 900, that sounds like a problem with the quality of the player base.

Now projecting placement across such a large base number of 10,517,118 is affected by daily changes so a range of your rating over a 30 day period is probably a more accurate measure of your actual rating online.  Unless of course, you practice a lot of things that you would not normally do in online chess and use it as a means for improvement or fun.  In that case, ratings may prove to be less meaningful in comparison to the enjoyment of playing chess or getting stronger as an overall competitor.

Not necessarily because there are over 10 Million Players & proportionally across the broad spectrum of chess players worldwide, there are varying ranges of skill level.  

Hence, if you are rated 800 or above, then it is reason to feel quite good about yourself because you stand within the to 50% of players within a base of 10 Million. 

If you are not there yet, then it gives you something to reach for... the key is to stay persistent and keep playing chess. 

If you enjoy something and take pride in it you'd be good at it.

True.  

However, one could also get really good at chess by just enjoying it and not taking it too seriously as well.

In which case I'm sure the average rating would be a lot higher than 800-900, which brings us back to the point of there being a problem with the quality of the playerbase.

I really don't see an issue with the player base because there will always be a number of beginner level players, intermediate and advanced players online.  

If we say that half the players are beginners to intermediate players and the other half are above 800 to 900+ then it is true to the level of skill across the globe.  Proportionality is the key in any measure internationally.

If you're an 800-900+ level player, then chances are that you will be the best player in your neighborhood tournament or a pick up match at a local food court.  

Surely then it'd be better to either exclude beginners from the average result, or go by wins/losses and work out the average win percentage

There is an interesting fact that there is no FIDE-rating below 1,000, if I am not mistaken, but also no FIDE-rating above 2,900 (Hikaru Nakamura's OTB-Blitz-ratings in the highest at the moment), so why we find a rating even below 800 and far above 2,900 here. Interesting is now that the rating on chess.com is normally higher than your FIDE-rating, so how come there are much lower ratings and much higher ratings compared to FIDE-rating? Is it the number of games top players can play (much more than OTB), a "wrong" FIDE-threshold, a different rating system or what is the reason of this phenomenon?

Those are excellent questions that I am certain that many other players have posed at some point during their competition on Chess.com

While an official answer to your question could probably be better provided by one of the more experienced Moderators on Chess.com, here is a short video describing the correlation or relationship between Chess.com blitz ratings and USCF & FIDE ratings.

https://youtu.be/pA10BKxi-Qw?t=1

Roughly speaking, I believe that a 2150 Chess.com blitz rating correlates to about a 2350 USCF rating and 2400 FIDE based on metrics analysis of my own ratings & the ratings of players whom I know personally on Chess.com.  It is in some ways close to the results generated by the analyses provided in the video, but I believe that there will invariably be some variation based on the actual skill level of individual players.  That being said, a 2150 blitz rated player may have the actual skill of a 2200-2350 USCF or fall within a range of 2100-2200 FIDE.  Meanwhile, a similar more highly skilled 2150 blitz player who has the same rating but lower Glicko RD may actually have a much higher rating range of 2350 USCF and 2400 FIDE.  The ratings are dependent upon the individual more than any formulaic assessment model.  

Meanwhile there seems to be the opposite negative correlation for other forms of chess and chess tactics.

In any case, it is an interesting topic to explore in greater detail and I hope that an experienced Moderator on Chess.com will be able to provide us with a more official insight.

Most recreational players don't have a FIDE rating at all so it's less surprising that there aren't much lower FIDE ratings compared to on chess.com

Actually, it makes sense that the FIDE ratings would not be much lower given that many recreational players do not have FIDE ratings.  The reason being that skill level is not measured by a particular variable such as being a "professional" player or "amateur".  When you have competed and won any form of compensation, you are considered a "professional" player.  

You could enter a tournament and receive the sponsorship of a company and you would be considered a "professional"

Online chess is instructive because it shows that skill is often not reserved to those who are professional players and that many recreational players are quite formidable.  

Having the benefit of formal instruction or active coaching to develop in chess is useful as it provides the basics by which to develop good techniques and habits.  However, like anything else that can be influenced by natural talent or intellect, chess skill can be dependent upon how one adapts and works to improve

There's actually a thread on here that has a link to a site where it shows the relationship between FIDE/USCF and chess.com blitz rating.  For anyone who is interested, that thread is https://www.chess.com/article/view/chesscom-rating-comparisons.

Thank you for the link to the article.  

During my gameplay on Chess.com, I have come across many players who are rated quite highly USCF & FIDE with some within the ranges of 2400 to 2700.

To date, my highest Chess.com rated opponents have been in the 2400 to 2484 rating range

What I have found invariably is that there is indeed a high level of chess being played on Chess.com and there are very strong players around the world who compete online.  Every country seems to have a different tendency when it comes to chess play.  That is something that I find most interesting.

When you play thousands of games on Chess.com, you will realize that certain countries have tendencies with regards to game play, aggressiveness, passive attacks, hidden traps, openings, end games...  it is an interesting study to evaluate the tendencies based on stereotypical game play versus actual probability ratios.  Computer programs such as the analysis engine provided by Chess.com does provide a starting point to understanding the tendencies of worldwide players.  

I believe that there is a direct correlation between your rating on Chess.com and the overall rating systems internationally through USCF & FIDE.  

There are players rated within the 2100 to 2200 level who are titled players in various countries of origin.  FM NM IM GM WFM WIM WNM all of which are tremendous accomplishments in and of itself.

By reviewing the overall curve of ratings on Chess.com it is clear that once you reach a certain level of chess proficiency, you cross over into the rating levels highlighted in this thread topic.  

I’ve been playing for 4 months now and my rating is around 1340.  I thought that my progress seemed extremely slow.  I’m I being too hard on myself?

Your progress is definitely not slow at all...  consider this, if you look at the overall curve of chess competitors on Chess.com, at 1340, you should be well within the 50%+ of the ratings curve.  Copy your current rating if you would and post it.  You will see that you're actually not a bad player at all

That's the starting point to realizing that you can get much better.  I started at around 1362 nearly 5 years ago here on Chess.com.  

When I started college early, something that really helped me improve my chess skill was getting a really hot girlfriend.  I was inspired by Andrea Botez so I said damnit I might suck at chess now, but maybe if I get a hot girlfriend then I can improve my chess skill...  and it worked! 

Andrea "Speed Queen" & in response to a question from another member, no Andrea was never my girlfriend.  My girlfriend wasn't as smart as Andrea but she had other compensating qualities.  

I use to play chess on my computer while hanging out with my girlfriend and when I was losing, she would say to me "Wow, you suck" or "Why do you suck so bad?" 

Whenever I was in a slump, she would tell me "Maybe you should give up playing chess you loser" or sometimes "I can't believe you're still playing chess when you suck so bad."  That actually made me get better because I didn't want her to think that I sucked at chess and she only said nasty things when I was losing while looking over my shoulder.

I know that sounds weird, but its true.    Sometimes you need that kind of negative encouragement to push you to get better.  Needless to say, I'm a stud at chess now and getting fine girlfriends in college is a lot easier

Thank you Sir.  Great advice.  This is very helpful information.  It’s hard at times to know if you’re on track or completely wasting valuable time by focusing on the wrongs things.

Here’s my screen shot.  I stopped playing Blitz and bullet due to some feedback I received from a prior question I posted to the community.  But, you get an overall view of my progress.  I just started to play puzzles as well.