Atrocious comes to mind...
How good are you based on your skill and rating.

that's not how it works, you're either a patzer or not a patzer, you can't have the skills of a pazter and not be one
Then I'm a patzer

I'm sure I'll never be that good a player. However someone said to me the other day, "gg -- really gg" and that made the game better overall for me.

I'm sure I'll never be that good a player. However someone said to me the other day, "gg -- really gg" and that made the game better overall for me.
The term "good" is so relative. I had a student that was so down on himself that he kept saying "Im the worst chess player in the world."
So one day i asked him: "How many people are on the this planet?
I dont know...
"About 7.5 billion people, and of those roughly 700 million play chess."
"So you are better than roughly 6.8 billion people."
And that was all it took to turn his attitude around. He never pursued chess seriously, but he did go on to play for fun. and enjoy it.

What does this even mean?
Chess slang for poor chess player.
No, not "patzer." I mean the original post.

What does this even mean?
Chess slang for poor chess player.
No, not "patzer." I mean the original post.
Ah, sorry about that.

I'm sure I'll never be that good a player. However someone said to me the other day, "gg -- really gg" and that made the game better overall for me.
The term "good" is so relative. I had a student that was so down on himself that he kept saying "Im the worst chess player in the world."
So one day i asked him: "How many people are on the this planet?
I dont know...
"About 7.5 billion people, and of those roughly 700 million play chess."
"So you are better than roughly 6.8 billion people."
And that was all it took to turn his attitude around. He never pursued chess seriously, but he did go on to play for fun. and enjoy it.
That's basically what I got from "really gg", that my having lost that particular game was of no consequence. It was simply a fun game. And that I'd rather lose while putting up an enjoyable fight than win by virtue of smashing an opponent down. Which isn't sandbagging, in my opinion, though it treads that line.

Advanced:
100- 1200 your skill are most likely compared to intermediate, beginner, and those who are new to chess.
1201-1400 Below Average
1401- 1699 Average
1700-1999 Above Average
2000 Your skill are most likely compared to a grandmaster.
... No, a 2000 is no where near comparable to a GM. I frequently visit the 2100 range and I'm barely comparable to a NM or a CM. I'm about 1900 strength OTB USCF (you can look me up, it'll be like 1000 right now, that's because I haven't played otb since covid) if you want "comparable to gm", try 2700

You would never call a bad basketball player who has played all his life a beginner. You would never call a veteran of several battles but can’t shoot straight and is a coward a beginner. You would never call a GM who has lost his mental capacities and now has troubles a beginner.
Labels are unnecessary since your rating says everything you need to know. If you must use a label, just say “lower rated.”
lol