Is 1000 a good rating?

I'm like 40% lol

Its only good compared to someone who doesn't know how to play. Ive got a few friends whove played as kids and theyre 1500ish. I feel like I need to get to at least to 1300 to actually play with them. So yea, once the computer starts saying 0blunders for most of your games, youll be moving past 1000. But beating these 11-12 hundreds with 4-5 mistakes is still not teaching us much. Once we get down to 2 or less mistakes its time to dig deep whatever rating that is Id say thats a good rating to start with.

You’ll get there

I love reading these posts and people are like "So yea, once the computer starts saying 0blunders for most of your games, youll be moving past 1000. But beating these 11-12 hundreds with 4-5 mistakes is still not teaching us much. Once we get down to 2 or less mistakes its time to dig deep whatever rating that is Id say thats a good rating to start with." and having blunderless 2-3 mistake victories against cpu's up to 1900 and being rated like 650. 

I think I have the problem of bad @ chess

li chess ratings are not very accurate I beat a "1800 -1900" easily like he was an

1000

and less

a lot less

Why is it so difficult to get rid of the term 'beginner?'

Good players consider the lower rated players beginners way too long. I understand that for higher rated players (especially talented ones that had no real trouble getting there), lower rated player look like idiots, as they make beginner mistakes. But chess is a complex game. To people like Magnus and Hikaru, even 2500+ rated players make beginner mistakes.  It's an unfair and inaccurate term.

Imagine being a runner and being a better runner than 75% of people running and being called a beginner.
I like the term hobbyist, but what about terms like amateur, casual player, recreational player, minor league, aspirant, rookie, rook, pupil, graduate, undergraduate, junior, medior, senior, sophomore, dark horse, horse, scholar, etc.

This might be a useful benchmark to assess playing abilities for young talented people. But not for a larger population. The idea that people aged 30 can pick up chess and get 1400-1600 rating with only 4 hours a week, seems ridiculous. Aged 20, studying 4 hours a weeks can get to a higher rating, but most wont. And that is fine and should be fine.

Jaro’s posts on the subject are generally just condescending and imply if you don’t get good, there must be something wrong with you. Nobody would say that someone who played basketball every day of their life but still missed most of their jump shots is a beginner. Nobody would say that someone who cooks every day but makes bad food is a beginner. Nobody would say that a very old GM with Alzheimer's and still tries to play, but has lost nearly all of his abilities is a beginner. It’s just a substitute for not very good, and it doesn’t accurately describe anything.

This is correct, I'm 10 months in from absolute 0 in my 30s, but it's not 4 hours a week... Maybe 4 hours a week playing, but many many more hours of side work with it!!!

Yes you do. You have to play more boring and you'll win more. I mean it's hard to understand, you want to win, but actually you don't want to loose. So, not to loose, you have to play more boring. Patience is incredible skill for chess. Just wait for 20-30 moves not blundering playing boring and then start the attack. Took me a long time, but its working.

Also, I think there's a statistic somewhere telling that out of 15 world champions only 3 were attackers... So yea it's better to bide your time and strike when your oponent is valnurable.

I am a  1200-1300 player.

What am I?

"1200-1400 weak intermediate, class “D” level player ~1-2 years experience"

Oh i am weak....

"90%+ Good"

Looking at the percentile here on chess.com i am better than 90.2% of all 28.5 million people playing rapid.

So i am good?

Btw i am just feeling as absolute beginner....

I’m using the term beginner to desribe someone around that skill level. There is no better word I can think of, and I agree it’s not a great word but I literally can’t think of a word that would better fit it. If that upsets you then give me a good word to use but until then im going to use the word beginner to describe that level

And how on earth does it imply that? Chess is a game played for fun and the majority of players play it for fun because it’s an fing game. I’m saying if you study, you should hope to reach these levels at around these times. I’m not saying any of that bs you just shoved in my mouth. In the end, nobody even cares about your rating

@blueemu: thanks. but how did you get there? my statistics look different, and not only with the ratings

I go to my profile, click "Daily", click "Full Stats", click "Global" and then set the drop-down menu in the top left corner back to "Daily"... for some reason, that menu doesn't seem to know which time control I selected.

I'm not in the Beta, so this is how it's done for non-Beta members.

😄