Is 1000 a good rating?
Sort:
https://lichess.org/nnCJfrlE/black#66#Is-1000-a-good-rating?
Oct 5, 2021
0
#22
jaro488 wrote:
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
That can't be right... I've been playing chess for over 6 years and my ratings are still about 1100.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#23
Wait never mind I have been on this site for about 15 months. Before that I didn't play much.
Ok
I am a thousand dude but people call me a [Deleted]-DT.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#26
infiniteplay wrote:
I am a thousand dude but people call me a omit
Language.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#27
I’ve seen that chart a zillion times. It’s just plain wrong. Rating measures relative skill within a group, not absolute skill. A 1000 rated player today would smash a 1000 rated player from 30 years ago. Your typical 1000 these days watches lots of videos, does lots of puzzles, and plays hundreds of more games. They know a decent amount of theory and generally lose because of loose pieces or losses to simple tactics. To classify them as beginners is not only wrong, but offensive.
The chess.com bots are rated as follows: beginner bots are up to 850. Intermediate bots are 1000-1400. Advanced bots are 1500-2000, with master above that. That seems more fair. To lump someone who is in the 75th percentile on chess.com and actually studies, in with someone who thinks Ruy López is an imported beer is silly.
The chess.com bots are rated as follows: beginner bots are up to 850. Intermediate bots are 1000-1400. Advanced bots are 1500-2000, with master above that. That seems more fair. To lump someone who is in the 75th percentile on chess.com and actually studies, in with someone who thinks Ruy López is an imported beer is silly.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#28
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
To lump someone who is in the 75th percentile on chess.com and actually studies, in with someone who thinks Ruy López is an imported beer is silly.
Seriously. Everybody knows that Ruy Lopez is a cocktail.
Ruy Lopez Cocktail Recipe (makemeacocktail.com)
Oct 5, 2021
0
#30
ShuckleSquad13 wrote:
jaro488 wrote:
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
That can't be right... I've been playing chess for over 6 years and my ratings are still about 1100.
Studying chess is not the same as playing it. And it’s an average/estimate so it will not be 100% accurate
Oct 5, 2021
0
#31
1000 is someone who has at least put some work into the game. While they may still blunder quite a bit, they know some theory, tactics, and might have some endgame knowledge. Now would I say they are a beginner? Depends on who you ask. I’m 1900 but, still consider myself to be a beginner due to my HUGE lack of knowledge on the game. But to answer your main question 1000 is not a bad rating.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#32
jaro488 wrote:
ShuckleSquad13 wrote:
jaro488 wrote:
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
That can't be right... I've been playing chess for over 6 years and my ratings are still about 1100.
Studying chess is not the same as playing it. And it’s an average/estimate so it will not be 100% accurate
I’m assuming this if for OTB ratings?
Oct 5, 2021
0
#34
@ricorat - every 1000 can mate with Q and K. Most know R and K. Most know to bring the king up in the endgame. Most know the importance of pinning and pawn structure. All have at least one opening as white and defenses against e4 and d4. Most can recognize and name common openings and even many variations and have plans against them. Most have at least a passing knowledge of important historical figures and can recognize the names of most of the top 20 players in the world. They don’t think that en passant is a chess.com bug, and most lose because they missed something or calculated poorly
To lump that person in with someone who makes five consecutive knight moves in the opening or seem to move pieces and pawns at random. They might not be seem very good to people with a higher level of mastery, but they are not beginners.
To lump that person in with someone who makes five consecutive knight moves in the opening or seem to move pieces and pawns at random. They might not be seem very good to people with a higher level of mastery, but they are not beginners.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#35
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
@ricorat - every 1000 can mate with Q and K. Most know R and K. Most know to bring the king up in the endgame. Most know the importance of pinning and pawn structure. All have at least one opening as white and defenses against e4 and d4. Most can recognize and name common openings and even many variations and have plans against them. Most have at least a passing knowledge of important historical figures and can recognize the names of most of the top 20 players in the world. They don’t think that en passant is a chess.com bug, and most lose because they missed something or calculated poorly
To lump that person in with someone who makes five consecutive knight moves in the opening or seem to move pieces and pawns at random. They might not be seem very good to people with a higher level of mastery, but they are not beginners.
To lump that person in with someone who makes five consecutive knight moves in the opening or seem to move pieces and pawns at random. They might not be seem very good to people with a higher level of mastery, but they are not beginners.
Oh yeah I never said that they were beginners, they obviously know a lot more then your “beginner” player and it’s ver much a respectable rating
thank you.My ego is very happy
Oct 5, 2021
0
#37
theoof11 wrote:
thank you.My ego is very happy
I mean it’s true though, while y’all have a decent knowledge of the game
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
@ricorat - every 1000 can mate with Q and K. Most know R and K. Most know to bring the king up in the endgame. Most know the importance of pinning and pawn structure. All have at least one opening as white and defenses against e4 and d4. Most can recognize and name common openings and even many variations and have plans against them. Most have at least a passing knowledge of important historical figures and can recognize the names of most of the top 20 players in the world. They don’t think that en passant is a chess.com bug, and most lose because they missed something or calculated poorly
To lump that person in with someone who makes five consecutive knight moves in the opening or seem to move pieces and pawns at random. They might not be seem very good to people with a higher level of mastery, but they are not beginners.
To lump that person in with someone who makes five consecutive knight moves in the opening or seem to move pieces and pawns at random. They might not be seem very good to people with a higher level of mastery, but they are not beginners.
Wow, I should have a higher rating then. Maybe I'm just bad 
If you are a newbe is good.
