If you beat a 2150 engine is pretty good. But dont forgot, human play different than engines. Sometimes playing sidelines can be more hard than best move from engine. Human try win and accept some rysky....
Now, if you are seeking for a 'good boy, continues working hard, good job', I think that is not good... Just play and know yourself, play against others guys and test in real scenary if you are good or no... In chess a strong character is necessary too...
Is 2150 good?
Sort:
2150 is pretty good--somewhere between barefoot in warm grass good and pizza margherita good.
FineSpline wrote:
Hello. I downloaded the chess.com app two weeks ago. After watching the lessons I wanted to see if I could be good at the game. I started playing the computer at 500, and would progress only when beating that level. Long story short I beat level 2150, and now I'm struggling with 2300. I'm considering upping my game with books and coaching, but with my addictive personality I'm nervous about taking the plunge unless it shows promise.
Is beating the computer at 2150 considered good? Or is it pretty average or below average? Thanks for your responses!
There is just one way to know: play some live games with humans.
BlargDragon escreveu:
2150 is pretty good--somewhere between barefoot in warm grass good and pizza margherita good.
English is not my preferred language, is the expression I used inappropriate in context?
Thanks for the feedback! For those asking, nobody was inappropriate. All good. I do plan on playing against real people soon. My logic is that with computers you know what you get. This grants me a steady environment to gauge progress. With people there are countless variables to consider that could make someone play particularly good or bad at any given point. So the progression leaves me with doubts. But I do agree I need to do it, and I certainly plan on playing pvp soon.
Play some humans and get a chess.com rating. Find out how you stack up.
osdeving8 wrote:
BlargDragon escreveu:
2150 is pretty good--somewhere between barefoot in warm grass good and pizza margherita good.
English is not my preferred language, is the expression I used inappropriate in context?
Nah, you're fine! Your explanation is good. I just went in an irrelevant direction.
If you can beat a human who is rated 2150, that is pretty good.
Bla bla bla bla .......
Play live in here 3|2 mins or 5|5 mins and see if you can achieve 1200 rating first
Is 2500 good? Is 2700 good? Is world champion good?
I doubt you can achieve 12 hundred on this website sometime soon
play real chess and you will know.
That's impressive... Just started out chess for one month and I'm still struggling with 1100 computer lol
cheahchungyin escreveu:
That's impressive... Just started out chess for one month and I'm still struggling with 1100 computer lol
the guy was not clear... I can start with 500, but I can have played chess for years, no heavy theory reading books, but watching some videos etc... Start with 500 dont means you had 500... Some people reach 1800 force playing for some years just against his father or brother...
I knew this 1700 guy who said he could play equally vs his fritz machine up to 2600.
Pretty pointless when there are software / hardware handicaps (which apparently there were because obviously 1700 is not 2600).
wow thats horrible, I feel for you my feeble minded friend
9497010838 wrote:
1) did you know how to play before starting at 500
2) do you know any opening theories, or even the names of the standard openings?
3) is it possible to checkmate an opponent’s solely remaining king when all you have left is a king and knight?
1) did you know how to play before starting at 500
2) do you know any opening theories, or even the names of the standard openings?
3) is it possible to checkmate an opponent’s solely remaining king when all you have left is a king and knight?
2 and 3 are no. I still don't know much about opening theories, except maybe the queens gambit. Cannot checkmate with king and knight seems pretty easy to understand. It wasn't asked, but my end game is absolutely pathetic. Like, "have you ever played chess before?" pathetic. As for question #1, I did play chess casually when I was a teenager. I could never beat my older brother, so I got discouraged and stopped playing. That was about 20 years ago. It wasn't until I downloaded the chess app that I learned there were such things like developing pieces, controlling the center, and opening theory. Mind blown.
A common theme in this thread is to play pvp, not the computer. I recognize pvp is important, but why is the computer not good to play against? My understanding is the computer can beat any player in the world, so to see how we stack up against that sounds like a pretty good path, no?
Basically playing against computers will be less usefull then playing PvP if you want to learn how to play chess in PvP well. Most people's aim is to play chess in PvP well because that's were you can really compare levels. If you have a rating it's much easier to see how good you are then if you have only played vs PCs.
2100 is fabulous
Hello. I downloaded the chess.com app two weeks ago. After watching the lessons I wanted to see if I could be good at the game. I started playing the computer at 500, and would progress only when beating that level. Long story short I beat level 2150, and now I'm struggling with 2300. I'm considering upping my game with books and coaching, but with my addictive personality I'm nervous about taking the plunge unless it shows promise.
Is beating the computer at 2150 considered good? Or is it pretty average or below average? Thanks for your responses!