respond?
Is 1100 considered a respectable and above average rating?
Sort:
Nov 19, 2024
0
#284
1100 is average and actually you would likely beat a lot of people off the street. Forget about elo, it ruins the game.
I am around 1900 (rapid) now, I peaked at 2060. Still considder myself a pretty average player to be honest.
Nov 19, 2024
0
#286
I will say that as you truly dive into playing 1100 is nice but the real goal should be 1400-1500 as that step up separates you from those who like to play and those who can play well.
Personally as a new 1100 I'd say that it depends on what your goal is. Mine is to eventually react GM.
Jan 3, 2025
0
#288
I’m about 1100 right now too and when I was like 700 I thought i was super good lol
wers_than_my_rating wrote:
I’m about 1100 right now too and when I was like 700 I thought i was super good lol
me too bro xD
Jan 3, 2025
0
#290
Thank you for the recommendations for checkmate books. Any book recommendations for general tactics?
Ziryab wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
1100 is an advanced beginner. Many people play chess for decades and never reach that level. Everyone who studies chess exceeds it quickly. If you care about rating, study to improve.
Do tactics (preferably from books that arrange the problems in an instructive manner).
Learn the games of Greco, then Morphy, then Capablanca. Those should get you over 1600.
Learn checkmates.
1100 is above average among beginners. It is above average on this site. It is near the bottom among adult tournament players, but above average in children's tournaments.
Learn checkmate patterns.
Jan 3, 2025
0
#291
ricksterman wrote:
Thank you for the recommendations for checkmate books. Any book recommendations for general tactics?
Ziryab wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
1100 is an advanced beginner. Many people play chess for decades and never reach that level. Everyone who studies chess exceeds it quickly. If you care about rating, study to improve.
Do tactics (preferably from books that arrange the problems in an instructive manner).
Learn the games of Greco, then Morphy, then Capablanca. Those should get you over 1600.
Learn checkmates.
1100 is above average among beginners. It is above average on this site. It is near the bottom among adult tournament players, but above average in children's tournaments.
Learn checkmate patterns.
Susan Polgar’s book is a good start. Sergey Ivashchenko’s two volume Manual of Chess Combinations are the best workbooks that I know (I’m still working through volume 2).
In beween, there are many excellent choices.
The first tactics book I read completely was Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book. But, I’ve dipped into dozens of others.
Jan 21, 2025
0
#293
I wouldn't say that for 26-40 age, 1100 is bad, since at that age there are a lot of people who don't play chess, and also back then, they didn't have access to good chess education
As a 1100 ish on bullet i can say, i only win from my opponent losing time; resign due to dissconnect lol.
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
RikLikesTacos wrote:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
RikLikesTacos wrote:
Honchkrowabcd wrote:
1100 rating is terrible. At that range, most games are just decided by who can take the most hanging pieces. It's even worse for Daily because lots of people lose on time.
I think you confused 1100 with 600. 1100´s can get pretty decent accuracies and games, and it usually comes down to pawns, or maybe even pawn structures. endgame knowledge and predicting moves is vital at this level. Take it from a 1200 (rapid) that knows what it´s like to play at the 1100 level. I feel 1100 is decent but still room for improvement.
Like your almost not a beginner but not quite good enough to be in the middle sorta cause that's what I was thinking ?
But yes 1200s hang pieces all the time lol occasionally they play well but they choke under pressure alot like they play decently some games but miss alot of stuff
In 30 minute rapid games 11-1200´s rarely hang pieces. in blitz sometimes we hang. but calling us ¨terrible¨ and ¨who can take the most hanging pieces¨ is very much wrong, as well as rude
I wouldn't say you guys are terrible I just wouldn't say you guys are "good " either but im pretty sure I thought I was pretty bad and blundering peices /squares all the time when i was 1600-1900 lol
No hard feelings this was just my experience going up the rating ladder lol
Feb 11, 2025
0
#296
Ayan724 wrote:
depends on age
9-15-very good
16-25-ok/not bad
26-40-bad
It doesn't depend on age, but on experience
Red Alert! We have yet another OP who needs a hug.
Feb 14, 2025
0
#298
A first grader in a tournament that I ran last week improved his OTB to the mid-1100s. He’s very impressive. The last first grader in my city with a rating above 1100 had been kindergarten state champion. He’s in college now and has a rating near 2100.
Honchkrow wrote:
1100 rating is terrible. At that range, most games are just decided by who can take the most hanging pieces. It's even worse for Daily because lots of people lose on time.
not this person who thinks all 500s should be removed
Hello. I was about 1700 blitz on lichess and 1100 blizt on chess.com I have played all my life over 30 years but never really studied. I do have openings up to 10 moves that i play within the 1st 20 seconds of the game. I try also to build my attack around my knights so will mostly trade bishops for knights. The advice about studying checkmates seems very good. i am going to do that more. i still fall for traps and players who know my openings and have studied then i find very tricky to win or even draw with. hopefully this helps!
my rating is 1100 in rapid but, my dad dose not consider it good