is 2200 a good rating?

Sort:
Kowarenai
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:

23-2600 players are all around 2000 or mostly filled with players who are near the master pool but aren't good enough.

I mean... you're mostly talking about yourself right? Some titled players are 2100 on chess.com. I see in your game history one GM was 2400 blitz.

thats cause they don't care about online or were peaked but age kept getting in the way

I'm just saying... most people above ~2400 blitz are good enough for a master title... the main exception being kids who get a boost in rating due to (my guess is) processing speed.

You said 2300-2600 aren't good enough to be master, but I'm saying what you really mean is you're 2500 and not good enough.

no you heard what i said most 2300-2600 players aren't good enough myself included

And you heard what I said... on the first page of your game history there's a 2400 blitz GM so... your statement is obviously very wrong.

its not wrong that GM is retired and peaked higher

Oh you said "most" ok, I mean, I disagree but I'll delete my comment about the 1 GM.

that is the most insignificant thing i have heard, you can disagree but at least don't delete

Uh, I think you don't understand me...

i do but what I am telling you is why delete something you were trying to prove?

I retracted the argument because I misread your post... which I already explained...

yes ik but you shouldn't delete that message

Unicorn_Horn12
Kowarenai wrote:
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:

23-2600 players are all around 2000 or mostly filled with players who are near the master pool but aren't good enough.

I mean... you're mostly talking about yourself right? Some titled players are 2100 on chess.com. I see in your game history one GM was 2400 blitz.

thats cause they don't care about online or were peaked but age kept getting in the way

I'm just saying... most people above ~2400 blitz are good enough for a master title... the main exception being kids who get a boost in rating due to (my guess is) processing speed.

You said 2300-2600 aren't good enough to be master, but I'm saying what you really mean is you're 2500 and not good enough.

no you heard what i said most 2300-2600 players aren't good enough myself included

And you heard what I said... on the first page of your game history there's a 2400 blitz GM so... your statement is obviously very wrong.

its not wrong that GM is retired and peaked higher

Oh you said "most" ok, I mean, I disagree but I'll delete my comment about the 1 GM.

that is the most insignificant thing i have heard, you can disagree but at least don't delete

Uh, I think you don't understand me...

i do but what I am telling you is why delete something you were trying to prove?

I retracted the argument because I misread your post... which I already explained...

yes ik but you shouldn't delete that message

I disagree... I was reacting to something you didn't say, so it makes no sense to leave it there.

Plus you already quoted it, so it's not like it's gone forever.

ice_cream_cake

What's even going on now lol

Unicorn_Horn12
ice_cream_cake wrote:

What's even going on now lol

I made the mistake of talking to someone under the age of 20.

ice_cream_cake

Lol people under 20 aren't always that bad cry

Kowarenai
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
ice_cream_cake wrote:

What's even going on now lol

I made the mistake of talking to someone under the age of 20.

he deleted a comment after realizing his mistake and i asked him why cause there is no need

Unicorn_Horn12
ice_cream_cake wrote:

Lol people under 20 aren't always that bad

I'm cranky, I didn't get my nap today...

lol

ice_cream_cake

Aww, yeah, hope you feel better though. No need to force yourself to stay awake though, imo.

Kowarenai
Unicorn_Horn12 wrote:
ice_cream_cake wrote:

Lol people under 20 aren't always that bad

I'm cranky, I didn't get my nap today...

lol

its ok to feel mad just drink tea like nepo and you sleep fast

ice_cream_cake

tea makes you sleep? im so confused

Badchesserrr4486999
ice_cream_cake написал:

tea makes you sleep? im so confused

Nothing like a hot cup o tea with lots of sugar in it to make you fall asleep, Ah yes.

Kowarenai
ice_cream_cake wrote:

tea makes you sleep? im so confused

whenever nepo drinks tea he falls asleep at the board

removedusername8329742834

2200 is very good as long as it is not your puzzle tactics rating.

HenryUrbanek
d4iscrazy wrote:

2200 mid

right

Unicorn_Horn12

Reacting to your own post is dumb and bad.

Kowarenai

i take it as an offense cause i rather show you my hard work than say my ratings good at all

Kowarenai

thats just the type of player i am so i ain't happy till the goal is done

ice_cream_cake

Okay, to be honest with you though, while that sentiment is both understandable and in certain ways admirable, I feel inclined also to say that to expect other people to anticipate how you feel about this is rather not reasonable. Objectively, it is indeed true that you are a strong player compared to most, including those who are quite interested in chess. For someone to point that out is, in my opinion, not wrong. Of course, you can point out that you are far from satisfied, but I just feel that's not on others to anticipate.

Stuckfish
ice_cream_cake wrote:

Okay, to be honest with you though, while that sentiment is both understandable and in certain ways admirable, I feel inclined also to say that to expect other people to anticipate how you feel about this is rather not reasonable. Objectively, it is indeed true that you are a strong player compared to most, including those who are quite interested in chess. For someone to point that out is, in my opinion, not wrong. Of course, you can point out that you are far from satisfied, but I just feel that's not on others to anticipate.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. If you're going to be annoyed and feel patronised when someone tells you they think your rating is good, you shouldn't ask for opinions.

Unicorn_Horn12
Sporkled wrote:
ice_cream_cake wrote:

Okay, to be honest with you though, while that sentiment is both understandable and in certain ways admirable, I feel inclined also to say that to expect other people to anticipate how you feel about this is rather not reasonable. Objectively, it is indeed true that you are a strong player compared to most, including those who are quite interested in chess. For someone to point that out is, in my opinion, not wrong. Of course, you can point out that you are far from satisfied, but I just feel that's not on others to anticipate.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. If you're going to be annoyed and feel patronised when someone tells you they think your rating is good, you shouldn't ask for opinions.

Luckily for me I don't have that problem. I'm a very well balanced human...

Ok, so now everyone needs to form a line, and take turns telling me how good I am 😇