Hello, When people here mention their ratings do they generally mean their "rapid" rating? If so, that really wouldn't compare to a real rating, with a standard time limit...right?
It used to be easy. People who had ratings only got them in slow chess over the board. Where I grew up, that rating came from the US Chess Federation.
Almost nobody had a FIDE rating. You couldn't even get a FIDE rating unless you achieved a 2000 rating.
Now, every player can have ten or more different ratings for different time controls. and variants, And many players play on more than one site. Each site has its own set of ratings.
I still think of over the board ratings when someone describes a player as a 1500 or a 2000. I don't think you should assume most people would be talking about rapid ratings on chess.com but that does make some sense, because 10|0 is the most popular time control on the most popular chess site and that was changed to be called rapid last year.
I think players could help reduce confusion by saying what type of rating they are talking about.
Is 1067 a good rapid rating on Chess.com?
And so on.
There is no precise answer. Good in relation to what? A master? No, 1067 is not good in relation to a master. However, it is above the average of all the rapid ratings here on chess.com.
The leaderboard shows that the average rapid rating is 878, so you are better than the average.
That rank is for my rating. If you look at the Leaderboard, it will show you a different rank.
Hello, When people here mention their ratings do they generally mean their "rapid" rating? If so, that really wouldn't compare to a real rating, with a standard time limit...right?