Is 1000 a good rating?
Sort:
Oct 5, 2021
0
#62
There’s no calculation with knight bishop king. It’s all pattern memorization. That I can do.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#63
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Jaro thinks 1000 is easy. Ridiculous. I used to be 1500 uscf in high school. I know more about chess than most people, but because of a medical condition I can’t calculate anymore and the moves become a jumble, so my rating is about 1000 (though to be fair, I resign a lot of games against London and Scandi players in the opening because I won’t be a party to that). Last week I mated with knight/bishop/king. I’ve got game 6 of Fischer/Spassky committed to memory. I bristle at the notion of being called a beginner.
just because you have done these things does not mean every 1000 can. Being called a beginner is not an insult nor something you should take offense to.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#64
most 1000s make many blunders in a game and the fact that you are 1000 means that you are at that level, unless there is a different reason for you being 1000 besides skill
Oct 5, 2021
0
#65
what would you like me to say then instead of beginner? novice? lower rated?
From what I’ve heard, 1200-1500 is a “good rating” that’s just what I’ve heard people say in the forums over my time here. This is on chess.com though, I don’t know much about Lichess.
jaro488 escreveu:
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Jaro thinks 1000 is easy. Ridiculous. I used to be 1500 uscf in high school. I know more about chess than most people, but because of a medical condition I can’t calculate anymore and the moves become a jumble, so my rating is about 1000 (though to be fair, I resign a lot of games against London and Scandi players in the opening because I won’t be a party to that). Last week I mated with knight/bishop/king. I’ve got game 6 of Fischer/Spassky committed to memory. I bristle at the notion of being called a beginner.
just because you have done these things does not mean every 1000 can. Being called a beginner is not an insult nor something you should take offense to.
Playing level does not have anything to do with chess knowledge in general, which characterizes how experienced one is in the game.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#68
Yep. I make a lot of blunders. I make a lot of calculation errors, obviously. I just said that.
Why call it anything? Why not just scrap the naming and go with something like class 1, class 2, class 3, etc, up to titles? Wait, I have any idea, why not use NOTHING? I mean your rating says all you need to know.
Why call it anything? Why not just scrap the naming and go with something like class 1, class 2, class 3, etc, up to titles? Wait, I have any idea, why not use NOTHING? I mean your rating says all you need to know.
jaro488 escreveu:
what would you like me to say then instead of beginner? novice? lower rated?
If we were to use these subjective terms to describe each one's level of play, I myself could say that you are a beginner just because I'm higher rated. And so could a 2000 tell me, and so on.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#70
I am NOT a beginner which is why I hate it. I’ve been playing since I was 7 and I’m now 23. That’s almost 2/3 of my life! I’ve won tournaments in high school. So I used to be intermediate, but now I’m a beginner again?
Oct 5, 2021
0
#71
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Yep. I make a lot of blunders. I make a lot of calculation errors, obviously. I just said that.
Why call it anything? Why not just scrap the naming and go with something like class 1, class 2, class 3, etc, up to titles? Wait, I have any idea, why not use NOTHING? I mean your rating says all you need to know.
Why call it anything? Why not just scrap the naming and go with something like class 1, class 2, class 3, etc, up to titles? Wait, I have any idea, why not use NOTHING? I mean your rating says all you need to know.
Not everyone understands what a rating means. The very point of this forum was someone didn’t understand what it meant.
I would say it's better to use percentiles:
1 - 25% Novice/Novice Beginner
25 - 50% Advanced Beginner
50 - 75% Intermediate
75 - 90% Advanced Intermediate
90%+ Good
95%+ Expert
99%+ Great
An Expert can be beat by a good play, but will usually win. An IM or GM will beat even a great player, but have to respect the game. So, I would say 1000 is decent - but not yet in good territory. Verging on advanced intermediate.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#73
WoodyTBeagle wrote:
1 - 25% Novice/Novice Beginner
25 - 50% Advanced Beginner
50 - 75% Intermediate
75 - 90% Advanced Intermediate
90%+ Good
95%+ Expert
99%+ Great
Wooo... I'm great!
Tremble before me, foolish mortals!
blueemu escreveu:
WoodyTBeagle wrote:
1 - 25% Novice/Novice Beginner
25 - 50% Advanced Beginner
50 - 75% Intermediate
75 - 90% Advanced Intermediate
90%+ Good
95%+ Expert
99%+ Great
Wooo... I'm great!
Tremble before me, foolish mortals!
I'm almost great... 98.6
Oct 5, 2021
0
#75
WoodyTBeagle hat geschrieben:
I would say it's better to use percentiles:
1 - 25% Novice/Novice Beginner
25 - 50% Advanced Beginner
50 - 75% Intermediate
75 - 90% Advanced Intermediate
90%+ Good
95%+ Expert
99%+ Great
An Expert can be beat by a good play, but will usually win. An IM or GM will beat even a great player, but have to respect the game. So, I would say 1000 is decent - but not yet in good territory. Verging on advanced intermediate.
Yes, that´s what I meant in general. Even if it does not feel too right for me to be in the penultimate part of the list. don´t feel that good...
Oct 5, 2021
0
#76
No it isn't. I'm 1200 and fell below average. 1000 people can still get away with Wayward Queen Attack and queen blunders. 1000 is slightly below average
Flash2721 wrote:
1000 is slightly below average
Definitionally untrue. 1000 is about 70% on chess.com - well above "average".
Oct 5, 2021
0
#78
WoodyTBeagle wrote:
Flash2721 wrote:
1000 is slightly below average
Definitionally untrue. 1000 is about 70% on chess.com - well above "average".
I dont understand
Flash2721 wrote:
WoodyTBeagle wrote:
Flash2721 wrote:
1000 is slightly below average
Definitionally untrue. 1000 is about 70% on chess.com - well above "average".
I dont understand
There's a distribution of ratings. 1000 and up is better than 70% of the players rated on chess.com. 7/10 players are lower than 1000. Definitionally, this is above average.
It is also true that above average is still mediocre.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#80
Flash2721 wrote:
WoodyTBeagle wrote:
Flash2721 wrote:
1000 is slightly below average
Definitionally untrue. 1000 is about 70% on chess.com - well above "average".
I dont understand
He's talking about Rapid (average rating around 800).
You're talking about Daily (average rating around 1030).
Two different worlds...
mated with kinght bishop and king?All hail the supreme lord!(Not kidding)