Is 1500 a good rapid rating on chess.com?

Yeah? Well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

One keyword to understand: Percentile!

So I got a room with 100 people doing a particular sport and you happen to be better then 90 of them at said sport and thats just terrible???????

Yes. You only really start understanding the game when you're titled.

Titled is what, 2400 chess.com?

Now keep in mind going from 2300 to 2400 is harder than going from 0 to 2000.

So yes 1500 is terrible. You're closer to someone who doesn't know the rules than you are to 2000.

Yes. I see your point. Perhaps "terrible" is an exaggerated term, but I understand the concept.

If you want to make an "objective" speech about the playing strength, you should refer to the path that goes from 0 to at least the first serious goal, that is, the title of Master, and understand at which point of this path you place yourself. The distance between a 1500 chesscom and a pure novice is much smaller than the abysmal distance between a 1500 and a National Master. Not to mention the sidereal distances between a NM and an IM, and between an IM and a GM.

The truth is that 95% of us are low-level players: beginners, amateurs, decent club players, nothing more in terms of playing strength. Only if we get close to being a master can we consider ourselves really strong, serious players. But only an infinitesimal fraction will become players of that level.

There's nothing offensive about that, it's just acknowledging how long the road is to get to a significant level at chess.

Everything else is subjective.

For example, for me something like 1500 would be satisfying, because I know that I could hardly go further, for several reasons. In this sense, each of us can set his own goal, consider it a milestone, and be satisfied if he reaches it. But this is really subjective.

If you are in the top 5%, but frustrated about your "lack of progress", and "stressed about not losing rating points", are you really doing better than someone around the 50 percentile who is really enjoying playing and not too concerned about the numbers ?

I don't think so.

ok yeah i guess it depends on the person. i saw a video where magnus said naka was playing against "really weak players".

the players he was against were mostly GMs...

How about like blitz or classical

im 2000

I know people that are above 2000 on Lichess but only 1500 on chess.com, so the rating systems are obviously different.

As I mentioned above: Percentile!

1500 is a pretty good rating, yes.

Asking "Am I good" isn't so good, though.

In chess, validation comes from results, not from canvassing opinions.

We don't VOTE on who wins a chess tournament. We PLAY.

In traditional martial arts they say that as well. You don't start actually learning until black belt.

Can it be explained what it is you don't learn until the high levels? Like is there a good book that explains it? Similar to how pop-science books can show you what modern physics is about and what equations are used. You don't actually have any knowledge to get hired as a physicist but you at least understand what they study and work on at the PhD levels.

1500 is a certificate of learnng the basics of chess

I was stuck between 300 to 600 ELO in chess rapid bcuz I quitted chess when I came back I became 1500 elo in 4 months is that good I studied a lot of chess games and learned multiple openings my main acc is RhyanNartea

Well you could be 1500 rapid and play only 10/0, or you could be 1500 playing just 60/0.

Different disciplines, but chess.com measures them by the same yardstick.

So the "rapid" rating is meaningless. The other site does it better.

2000 is a good rating

2035 is a great ratig