So, I don't quite understand. You say close to 10 years. Ok. You give scores like 1400 and 1700, ok. But what are those numbers referring to? Not chess.com right? It wasn't here 10 years ago. And not USCF right? 1400+200 = 1600 and I think 1600 USCF would be higher than 1700 chess.com online.
So I'm not sure.
So I'll talk in USCF terms. I'll say that the average adult USCF rating is around 1500. "In the broad spectrum of things" I'd call a 1700 USCF player a stronger than average club player.
no. It's actually not referring to uscf rating. When I started playing back in around 2007 about, I had a playchess. com account and I was 1450. Now on chess.com I top out at 1788. Either way chess is a huge benefit to my life. I'm happy to be into this game. Chess has helped me in a lot of ways. Still, at the end of the day I wish for my score to reflect my interest. is there any hope?
I have worked at chess seriously for close to ten years. When I first started actually taking chess seriously I was able to maintain a score of about 1400. I have worked really hard in solving the mysteries of this game. I haven't worked nearly as hard on any other thing as I have with chess. I have invested a countless amount of time and energy in chess. I do know that I have jumped light years ahead from my initial understanding. I feel like going up only 200 points doesn't really do my passion for the game any justice. What I would like to know is where a 1600-1700 fits in the broad spectrum of things. I've played some really good players in this range and some extremely tough 1700's. I know that this score is good, but like I said, I have put much work in this endeavour and I'm somewhat dissatisfied with the result. It doesn't mean I'm quitting. It just may give people some idea for the amount of work it takes people, or it could just be me. Could you possibly give me some positive reinforcement, so I can feel good about my score.
Looking at your profile it appears you and I are roughly the same.
I regret to be the one to have to tell you this but that could mean you approximately suck. But then so do approximately 90% of the rest of the players rated below you. In fact they suck even more.
Ask yourself this. When you win online games is it because you are playing only a few and spend lots of time figuring out best moves against others who have 20, 30, 100 games going at once and probably spend only a fraction of the time you do figuring their next move or is it the other way around.
It's very fuzzy how significant an online rating is. When I see I'm playing someone with a very high rating in tactics, then I worry.
I have worked at chess seriously for close to ten years. When I first started actually taking chess seriously I was able to maintain a score of about 1400. I have worked really hard in solving the mysteries of this game. I haven't worked nearly as hard on any other thing as I have with chess. I have invested a countless amount of time and energy in chess. I do know that I have jumped light years ahead from my initial understanding. I feel like going up only 200 points doesn't really do my passion for the game any justice. What I would like to know is where a 1600-1700 fits in the broad spectrum of things. I've played some really good players in this range and some extremely tough 1700's. I know that this score is good, but like I said, I have put much work in this endeavour and I'm somewhat dissatisfied with the result. It doesn't mean I'm quitting. It just may give people some idea for the amount of work it takes people, or it could just be me. Could you possibly give me some positive reinforcement, so I can feel good about my score.
Looking at your profile it appears you and I are roughly the same.
I regret to be the one to have to tell you this but that could mean you approximately suck. But then so do approximately 90% of the rest of the players rated below you. In fact they suck even more.
Ask yourself this. When you win online games is it because you are playing only a few and spend lots of time figuring out best moves against others who have 20, 30, 100 games going at once and probably spend only a fraction of the time you do figuring their next move or is it the other way around.
It's very fuzzy how significant an online rating is. When I see I'm playing someone with a very high rating in tactics, then I worry.
1600 is a great IQ score.
This is some joke silly post, right? Score? That's a great score. Carlsen scores what in a tourney? 8 or so? You got over 1600. Impressive indeeed.
His RATING is over 2800 though.
Where did you get this "score," and we'll let you know how good it is? FIDE? USCF?
To me right now, 1600 USCF is good for a RATING. It's all relative. Do you have a chess instructor? What's your study plan?
1600 is a great IQ score.
This is some joke silly post, right? Score? That's a great score. Carlsen scores what in a tourney? 8 or so? You got over 1600. Impressive indeeed.
His RATING is over 2800 though.
Where did you get this "score," and we'll let you know how good it is? FIDE? USCF?
To me right now, 1600 USCF is good for a RATING. It's all relative. Do you have a chess instructor? What's your study plan?
I don't like people who tells others that they suck at something they are obviously good at.
Well Louie, if it's so obvious why did you ask? Gawd I hope you weren't just fishing for praise or something. There is a class of people who when they get a good score on a tactics problem like to cut and paste their 100% and crow about it. Or announce to the world how "easy" the problem was for them. It's pathetic and I hope you ain't one of those.
Thanks. Chess has been a life long achievement. I was just hoping that I could someday play at the top right here on chess.com
If it's taken you this long to get to where you are now I wouldn't advise betting the farm on it.
no. It's actually not referring to uscf rating. When I started playing back in around 2007 about, I had a playchess. com account and I was 1450. Now on chess.com I top out at 1788. Either way chess is a huge benefit to my life. I'm happy to be into this game. Chess has helped me in a lot of ways. Still, at the end of the day I wish for my score to reflect my interest. is there any hope?
Unfortunately I think for most people their rating doesn't reflect their passion for the game. Both for adults who spend decades being mediocre and for kids who are forced to become comparatively excellent, but couldn't care less.
Being satisfied with your rating is also a tricky business. Be it for knowledge or performance we can imagine ourselves at least a little better. When we play players who are slightly better we can see their mistakes. Yet we're not quite as good.
Seeking respect from other players is also tricky. It's all relative to your rating. Players rated ____ lower "just don't get it." Players rated our level or higher "get it." Yesterday I saw a GM comment that you can get to [his rating - 100] with only tactics and superficial thinking, but to get to [his rating] you had to be good at tactics and understand on a deeper level. Seems silly, but this is what we all say. And as computers suggest, you can get to >3000 with tactics and superficial thinking.
Unfortunately This also means players we respect don't think much of us, while players we don't think much of think we're chess gods.
-----
Anyway, as the proverb goes, chess is a river in which a gnat may drink and an elephant bathe. No matter your rating, you can love the game. More importantly, and maybe what's causing you to ask this question, is that no matter your rating, you're justified in loving the game. You're a legitimate player! Enjoy it for its own sake, other's opinions of you don't figure into it.
Thanks. Chess has been a life long achievement. I was just hoping that I could someday play at the top right here on chess.com
If it's taken you this long to get to where you are now I wouldn't advise betting the farm on it.
no. It's actually not referring to uscf rating. When I started playing back in around 2007 about, I had a playchess. com account and I was 1450. Now on chess.com I top out at 1788. Either way chess is a huge benefit to my life. I'm happy to be into this game. Chess has helped me in a lot of ways. Still, at the end of the day I wish for my score to reflect my interest. is there any hope?
Unfortunately I think for most people their rating doesn't reflect their passion for the game. Both for adults who spend decades being mediocre and for kids who are forced to become comparatively excellent, but couldn't care less.
Being satisfied with your rating is also a tricky business. Be it for knowledge or performance we can imagine ourselves at least a little better. When we play players who are slightly better we can see their mistakes. Yet we're not quite as good.
Seeking respect from other players is also tricky. It's all relative to your rating. Players rated ____ lower "just don't get it." Players rated our level or higher "get it." Yesterday I saw a GM comment that you can get to [his rating - 100] with only tactics and superficial thinking, but to get to [his rating] you had to be good at tactics and understand on a deeper level. Seems silly, but this is what we all say. And as computers suggest, you can get to >3000 with tactics and superficial thinking.
Unfortunately This also means players we respect don't think much of us, while players we don't think much of think we're chess gods.
-----
Anyway, as the proverb goes, chess is a river in which a gnat may drink and an elephant bathe. No matter your rating, you can love the game. More importantly, and maybe what's causing you to ask this question, is that no matter your rating, you're justified in loving the game. You're a legitimate player! Enjoy it for it's own sake, other's opinions of you don't figure into it.
betting on what?
Betting that you'll be playing at the top level on chess.com. Don't you remember your own question? Top level here is what 2400-2500?
Sorry to hear you have an illness that is so grave. I'm betting chess makes you happy when you win but not so much when you lose. We all share that in common to one extent or the other. I would prefer if my make-up was such that winning or losing, the experience would feel the same because of pure love for the game and that I could be indifferent to rating. Too much ego in this game and because of it I've witnessed obnoxious behavior hardly ever seen anywhere else.
betting on what?
Betting that you'll be playing at the top level on chess.com. Don't you remember your own question? Top level here is what 2400-2500?
Sorry to hear you have an illness that is so grave. I'm betting chess makes you happy when you win but not so much when you lose. We all share that in common to one extent or the other. I would prefer if my make-up was such that winning or losing, the experience would feel the same because of pure love for the game and that I could be indifferent to rating. Too much ego in this game and because of it I've witnessed obnoxious behavior hardly ever seen anywhere else.
@OP : you're probably stronger than 99% of recreational players.
However, the only valuable question is : does chess bring you pleasure ? If it does, your rating is not so important. 
There is an easy way to check how you stand. Chess.com posts graphs of the ratings distributions. Your rating of 1637 looks like it is higher than three quarters of the players. With 439,000 players rated, that means there are still about 100,000 players better than you but you are better than about 300,000. Not so bad, is it?
There is an easy way to check how you stand. Chess.com posts graphs of the ratings distributions. Your rating of 1637 looks like it is higher than three quarters of the players. With 439,000 players rated, that means there are still about 100,000 players better than you but you are better than about 300,000. Not so bad, is it?
Louis Creed, I think you are on a good level, which I am struggling to establish on.
If you want to take another step, take GM-lessons, one to one.
GM Vladimir Georgiev is fantastic.
chessmentot scores don´t count, online chess rating is just the amount of time spent per move so your only rating is tactic, you should try blitz. of you score 1700 than you are good.
The path to improvement to me seems to be:
For me I don't enjoy hard study and I find more enjoyment from playing casually.
Like others have said, online has a lot of different factors that mean it's not a level playing field (time spent, access to resources etc). Perhaps join a slow chess team e.g. The Dan Heisman Learning Centre.
Your rating is decent, but you have to be honest and acknowledge that you have a lot of weaknesses in your game. To improve to a level where you are beating a GM in a proper game may not be achievable.
I have worked at chess seriously for close to ten years. When I first started actually taking chess seriously I was able to maintain a score of about 1400. I have worked really hard in solving the mysteries of this game. I haven't worked nearly as hard on any other thing as I have with chess. I have invested a countless amount of time and energy in chess. I do know that I have jumped light years ahead from my initial understanding. I feel like going up only 200 points doesn't really do my passion for the game any justice. What I would like to know is where a 1600-1700 fits in the broad spectrum of things. I've played some really good players in this range and some extremely tough 1700's. I know that this score is good, but like I said, I have put much work in this endeavour and I'm somewhat dissatisfied with the result. It doesn't mean I'm quitting. It just may give people some idea for the amount of work it takes people, or it could just be me. Could you possibly give me some positive reinforcement, so I can feel good about my score.