A 1000 is better than most players on the site, and better by far than most people in real life.
It is also lightyears away from strong club players.
Who are light years away being a GM.
Who are light years away from being world champion players.
Chess is like that, it seems.
So it's a good rating compared to average people.
The trouble is that good is a comparative term. Good compared to who/what? Compared to Magnus? No. Compared to most people, yes.
And what is the chess world?
People who play chess? A 1000 is much better than most.
People who play chess online? A 1000 is better than most.
People who play regularly at a chess club? A 1000 is probably below average.
People who play professionally? A 1000 is beneath that level.
Again, it's compared to who/what.
It's not about chess knowledge. It's about a definition of a term.
Statistically, it's higher than most people on this site.
Is that good? That's up to how you define the term. It's subjective.
No.
No. It's rubbish. 1k to 1.5 is beginner. 1.5k to 2K is strong club player. 2 to 2.5K you are interesting. 2.5k upwards you are a monstrosity.....
[Voted down 51 times at this point. It is his opinion, however, and is not otherwise offensive.- jbf]
What with people below 1k? bruh
And what is the chess world?
People who play chess? A 1000 is much better than most.
People who play chess online? A 1000 is better than most.
People who play regularly at a chess club? A 1000 is probably below average.
People who play professionally? A 1000 is beneath that level.
Again, it's compared to who/what.
That is very true
When I play random people, I usually destroy them, because they are usually casual players. When I go into a club here on chess.com, my rating is often looked as way below average.
I am on in the top 12.5% here on chess.com, and I'm 1100. But chess.com has 1,000,000 accounts, so at least 13,000,000 people are better then me at chess.
To be more specific, this is how the chess.com rating system basically works with estimates for years of experience based on someone who spends around 4 hours a week studying chess(my opinion):
100-700: new to chess/absolute novice ~1 month experience
700-1000: beginner ~3-6 months experience
1000-1200: hobbyist ~9-15 months experience
1200-1400 weak intermediate, class “D” level player ~1-2 years experience
1400-1600 strong intermediate, class “C” level player, ~3-4 years experience
1600-1800: advanced, class “B” level player, ~5-6 years experience
1800-2000: very advanced to expert, class “A” player, ~ 7-8 years experience
2000-2100: expert level, ~10 years experience
2100-2200: Candidate Master(CM), ~ 11 years experience
2200-2400 National Masters and Fide Masters, ~12-14 years experience
2400-2500 International Master (IM), ~15 years experience
2500-2650 Grandmaster, ~ 17-20 years experience
2650-2700 Very strong GM, ~20-25 years experience
2700+ Super GM, ~25+ years experience
hope this helps
NOt so accurate imo
I have 1year experience where according to this chart i should have 5-6 year experience
wow wow wow l didn't think you would discuss so much about this let's end this conversation right here okay?
No. It's rubbish. 1k to 1.5 is beginner. 1.5k to 2K is strong club player. 2 to 2.5K you are interesting. 2.5k upwards you are a monstrosity.....
If 1000-1500 is a beginner, what is <1000?
1,000 is a beginner's rating.
<1000 is people who are not using their mind or lack mental discipline to keep even a few moves in attention. Blind woodchucking, basically. Under 2,000 our games have little to do with actual chess.
I don't think that's a fair characterisation of under 1000 chess. And certainly not for under 2000. But it's all subjective, so it doesn't matter. To you anything below 2000 isn't really chess. To someone else anything below 2500 isn't really chess.
Going from not even knowing the rules to grinding from 100 to 1000 in a week is pretty amazing. How many games do you have to play to get 900 rating points?
1000 on chess.com is within the top 25% of players on the site
I do believe that lichess ratings are slightly inflated compared to chess.com
I would say 1000 Chess Elo is the breaking point into actually knowing how to play the game. You know tactics exist but you haven't quite figured out how they all work yet. You know about patterns, but you're still working on recognizing them in your games. You know about opening theory, but may not have found openings you like just yet or fully grasp the main variations of that opening.
1000 is the first real steps into the Chess world. Most of your wins from here will require you to actually play chess and not just push wood.
im finally a 1001 in bullet I'm kinda good but I've beaten a 1350 over the baord
1q
Hey lichess has ratings 900 points more than chess.com. So the minimum ratinf on chess.com is 100. 100+900=1000, so i think you are at the minimum lichess rating. Sorry, i'm not trying to be mean or anything, i'm just letting you know.