Ishant06 wrote:
1100 is way better
youre just as bully huh
is 1100 a good rating
Sort:
Ishant06 wrote:
ok then shut up
Ishant06 wrote:
then why tthe heck are you bullying him
you're the bulleh
Mar 22, 2021
0
#50
FudgePackingChessPlayer wrote:
Ishant06 wrote:
then why tthe heck are you bullying him
you're the bulleh
bully me and you're gonna get a pounding that's for sure
eric0022 wrote:
Probably some of the accounts in the bottom 78.1% are probably inactive ones tallying up to the 78.1% count.
But that is ok. An account with for example 1000 rating active or not is still 1000 in strenght so it seems like a fair representation
Yes, 1100 is a good rating. I regularly play against people rated under 500 in Bughouse, and they are usually pretty good.
Mar 22, 2021
0
#53
Be happy that you have still a long way to go. Wandering through the fields of learning is just fun, at least for me. I remember well when I started to learn all these prinziples and basic ideas (pawn chains, Rook behind the passed pawns, pins, decoins etc. etc.). It was a steady "Oh yeah, right; Hm, that sounds logica; fine, I see it... and so on). Now, after I know most of these things I really have to bring them on the board and that is not so easy, in fact. But still, it´s fun. I´m not one of the people who are envious of the IM´s, GM´s, Super GM´s. So: Go foreward, learn, play and don´t think too much of your rating. We are all 1000 Miles away from the big ones 
Mar 22, 2021
0
#54
Sorry for the late reply, I don't rlly wanna play among us cause red is always sus :,(
Also nice sound affect
Mar 22, 2021
0
#55
eric0022 wrote:
Deranged wrote:
Yes, that's a good rating. It makes you better than 78% of people on this site:
Probably some of the accounts in the bottom 78.1% are probably inactive ones tallying up to the 78.1% count.
The statistics only include accounts that have played at least one game in the past 90 days... as I recall.
Mar 24, 2021
0
#56
The question in itself is meaningless.
Let me show you.
Look at my rating, 1650, that’s relatively impressive right?
I mean, it’s a fair bit higher than your rating.
You would probably feel more pleased with your stats with a rating in the 1600’s, correct?
I mean, it’s 97th percentile on chess.com, in a player based numbering over 60 million people, that is just incredible, right?
The thing is, once you get to that rating, you will often be paired with peer opponents, and you’ll see just how mediocre the achievement actually is, when your opponent foolishly hangs a rook, or when you allow a simple knight fork to destroy your position utterly.
You’ll realize that 1600’s are still really quite bad at chess, possessing only cursory knowledge of each phase of the game.
Now, from my perspective, a rating of 2100 is a truly remarkable achievement, it is not too uncommon for people in that rating range to beat CM’s, NM’s, and FM’s.
Anyone in that range could adopt me in any time control.
And yet, I often see them make similarly disparaging comments about there chess that I make about myself.
This is because they are still near the bottom of the upper echelon of chess players.
They get absolutely demolished by people in the 2300’s and 2400’s.
And even at the very pinnacle of chess players, you see the very best grandmasters, such as Anish, Vidit, Hikaru, Anand, and even Magnus, make comments about there perceived terrible performances.
When you and I see these “blunders” that they beat themselves up about, we usually only see minor positional inaccuracies, or at worst the hanging of a pawn.
When I hang a pawn, I feel like it slightly inconveniences me, but when they hang a pawn, it’s not uncommon for them to resign.
TL;DR The feeling that you are bad at chess after making a mistake never goes away, because the better your play gets the higher the standard you set for yourself is, so despite making less mistakes as you improve, you will still be very critical of your own play.
Thus asking what a “good” rating is, means nothing.
You are good against the average joe, but bad for most club players.
Let me show you.
Look at my rating, 1650, that’s relatively impressive right?
I mean, it’s a fair bit higher than your rating.
You would probably feel more pleased with your stats with a rating in the 1600’s, correct?
I mean, it’s 97th percentile on chess.com, in a player based numbering over 60 million people, that is just incredible, right?
The thing is, once you get to that rating, you will often be paired with peer opponents, and you’ll see just how mediocre the achievement actually is, when your opponent foolishly hangs a rook, or when you allow a simple knight fork to destroy your position utterly.
You’ll realize that 1600’s are still really quite bad at chess, possessing only cursory knowledge of each phase of the game.
Now, from my perspective, a rating of 2100 is a truly remarkable achievement, it is not too uncommon for people in that rating range to beat CM’s, NM’s, and FM’s.
Anyone in that range could adopt me in any time control.
And yet, I often see them make similarly disparaging comments about there chess that I make about myself.
This is because they are still near the bottom of the upper echelon of chess players.
They get absolutely demolished by people in the 2300’s and 2400’s.
And even at the very pinnacle of chess players, you see the very best grandmasters, such as Anish, Vidit, Hikaru, Anand, and even Magnus, make comments about there perceived terrible performances.
When you and I see these “blunders” that they beat themselves up about, we usually only see minor positional inaccuracies, or at worst the hanging of a pawn.
When I hang a pawn, I feel like it slightly inconveniences me, but when they hang a pawn, it’s not uncommon for them to resign.
TL;DR The feeling that you are bad at chess after making a mistake never goes away, because the better your play gets the higher the standard you set for yourself is, so despite making less mistakes as you improve, you will still be very critical of your own play.
Thus asking what a “good” rating is, means nothing.
You are good against the average joe, but bad for most club players.
Mar 24, 2021
0
#57
BroiledRat wrote:
You’ll realize that 1600’s are still really quite bad at chess...
... and when you reach 2350, you'll realize that 2350-rated players are also quite bad at chess.
Mar 24, 2021
0
#59
Also depends on how much you play, im at 1122 now. But i now play 5 games a week all on saturdays, i study my books on chessable, and study my past games the rest of the week, play a few practice games on **lichess throughout the week. So with this regiment i win 4 out of 5 games on saturdays an have a steady slow climb. So if you study more then play you may end up being "underrated"
200 noob