Good/Average

"Good" depends on who you ask.

I don't know if that's true. If true, that doesn't mean they "think low of other chess players". More like they think low of themselves first, because they themselves will be 2100/2200 or lower (for most people, since 2100 will be at least 99% percentile). So that just means people are hard on themselves and have high standard etc.

But I don't think that statement is true though. Personally I think 1800 is plenty good. (Here I mean blitz or OTB, not online/correspondence).

Without looking at the percentile, I think if you're 1500+ in blitz, you can pat yourself in the back as "better than average". Anything more than that will just be gravy.

actually if my memory serves me 1900 online is already around 97%, so 1800 shouldn't be totally bad either.

To a beginner 1200 is godly.

To a top 10 player 2500 is pathetic.

What's considered good largely depends on your rating, your goals, and your circle of chess playing friends.

wow.

thats an impressively high rating, for being 'bad'

I would say amoung many of the club players, perhaps 1800

for a novice, 1200 is indeed a god.

another thing- most "chessplayers" aren't impressed by blitz ratings and espacially those online.   Your rating in the minds of many is FIDE standard. (or your national chess federation's equivalent of FIDE).

we all know that Correspondance numbers (called "online") here are just plain too high.  there's nothing embarassing about having a 1800/1900 online rating- but its not quite the same as having a similar rating in standard or blitz.

regarding blitz, 1200+ with a solid games history is actually better than average.   I have data that shows that above 1200 the average chess.com player tends to fall in rating when they play.

I think this is because SO many kids sign up for blitz and try to suck in the rating points.  just like in the regular chess world, kids are often under-rated.

I disagree that the ability to look at openings and even follow the master game database really makes much of a difference.

Instead, what probably makes MORE of a difference is the Analysis board. 

and the key question is not only how strong you are, but how many games do you have.  if you have 50 games, you probably are rushing your calculation quite a bit.  on the other hand, if you keep it to 5-10 and are meticulous in your calculations, with patience you can raise your rating (relative to your OTB skill) quite alot.

for me, online chess is about staying active in my groups and making sure I am reguarly playing chess.

and. your standard is equal to your online.

makes sense.

I don't play "online" to practice tournament play.  I use the analysis feature excessively sometimes.  I want to spend the Extra effort to get the calculations right. 

I'm totally aware that some people don't like this.  but to each his own-- if someone doesn't want me to use the opening database or analysis board, they should tell me that in chat at the beginning of the game...

I have a medical condition that doesn't allow my mind to think quickly anymore. My thought process is very slow now and when I decided I wanted to learn how to play chess many people tried to discourage me. The thinking was that I would have trouble making it through an entire game and that would only lead to frustration. Anyway, I know I will never be a real chess player but I have my own goals. This week I reached my highest blitz rating ever, 775. The goal I have is reaching a blitz rating of 900. For me that would be some accomplishment. If I ever hit that magic number I'm going to celebrate. I guess we all have different feelings on what we consider to be good.

ok.

but is Absolutely silly if you struggle with quick thinking to play blitz.

if I had a medical conditions that made it difficult to run fast, would it make sense to play sprints?

go for the marathons of chess.

the Long game.  then your find that your handicap is easier to deal with and you can achieve more.

with G30, perhaps you could reach 1200 or more.

wouldn't that be that better than 750, friend?  chess is not all about quick thinking.  the great players of this sport play chess games that last for hours.  and moreover , I find it very satisfying beating someone because I actually Understood the position and they did not.

oc, don't take this as discouragement.

if you feel you Must play blitz then good luck.  I just feel you are missing a better experience.

That question is relative.  It depends on what youre comparing "good" against, and who.  Some think blitz is a measure of true chess wisdom, while others dont.  

Just my opinion...If blitz is all your concerned about then play on.  be happy and dont worry about what good is.  But!  Playing longer chess time controls will greatly benefit your game overall.  

The question is moot if it's about "what a subjectively average rating is". Of course each person will just have something slightly ahead of him as the goal to reach for. It's completely pointless to even coming up with a number if the question is about a "relatively better rating".

However that doesn't mean there's no place for an "objectively average rating". In the same way the Fed still collect statistics about the "middle income" or "median income" for all households, here we can also define "average" as the middle point at which all players fall under and all fall above. So far I have not heard many comments in this direction. I know 1500 is definitely "above average", and great_patzer has mentioned 1200. Is 1200 the true middle point of all blitz players? If you're, say, 1300 in blitz, is it enough reason to say "I'm better than average"? That's the question that I think is more relevant.