Is a game rating of 1600 good for a 1200 rated player?

Hi,

I’m currently rated 1200 and wanted to ask if a game rating of 1600 is considered a good rating for someone at my level.  I’ve achieved game ratings as high as 2000 in a few of my games. What does this indicate about my potential? Does it mean I have the ability to reach a 1600+ rating?

Thank you!

I can see you are rated in the 1200s (rapid) but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 1600 or 2000 rating, since your stats page shows you've never been rated in the 1300s or higher. I assume you are referring to the chess.com game report estimate of your rating.

This is a statistic which is unreliable and chess.com was thinking about removing it (since it comes across as misleading) and then replacing this with a better estimator when they develop one in the future.

It may speak to your potential for improvement, but even 1200 to 1600 rating is a massive skill difference. I should know. I used to be rated below 1200 and my friend I was trying to win against was 1600s rating. They felt like a Grandmaster to me! What do they miss?

Well, obviously lots of things now that it's years later and I have learned a lot more, but back then, the skill difference of a 1600 compared to 1200 was apparent.

Here's a bit more about my story referenced if you are interested:

Thank you for your response @KeSetoKaiba, it’s inspiring to hear about your journey from below 1200 to surpassing 1600! To clarify, I was referring to the game rating estimates shown in the post-game analysis. I understand these are not official ratings and can be misleading, but I was curious about their significance. For example, in a few games I’ve seen these estimates reach as high as 2000 and it made me wonder if this reflects my potential for improvement or if it is as good as to be ignored.

I wanted to ask your thoughts on how long it might take to reach a 1600 rating from 1200 if I commit to daily practice of say, 30 minutes of lessons and two thoughtful 15|10 games per day. Based on your experience, does that sound like a reasonable path?

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply!

Those performance indicator aren't significant, though if your 1200 it means you played a relatively good game so congrats

I'm glad to know you found my 1200-ish to 1600-ish journey inspiring and from 1600-2000 was in it's own ways as well. I've been in the 2000s range on chess.com for several years now and hope to cross 2100 rapid sometime in the near future. Enough about my journey though: let's get to your newer questions:

- "I understand these are not official ratings and can be misleading, but I was curious about their significance... it made me wonder if this reflects my potential for improvement or if it is as good as to be ignored."

I'd say more to be ignored, or pretty close to it. This "estimate" is way too early to be reliable and chess.com is planning on making this more accurate in the future if possible. A better was to predict your improvement is seeing how motivated you are for chess, your desire to learn and invest effort into it.

- "I wanted to ask your thoughts on how long it might take to reach a 1600 rating from 1200 if I commit to daily practice of say, 30 minutes of lessons and two thoughtful 15|10 games per day. Based on your experience, does that sound like a reasonable path?"

Your path sounds reasonable, but reaching 1600 rating is likely to take a long time at that pace. The global average chess rating is about 600-700 rating range, so 1600 is probably about the top 10% or so of all chess players in the world. Luckily, it is reachable for many people, but it certainly won't be easy. If someone works really hard at it, then it's likely to take about 3-4 years of work to reach 1600s rating if it is ever reached at all.

The "problem" with this estimate is that everyone is unique. Someone may work hard and improve to 1500 in a year, but then plateau and struggle for a few years, or someone may work hard and incrementally keep up surpassing 1600. There's really not much you can tell other than just doing it.

30 minutes of "lessons" is good, but I'd also work into your daily routine some tactics "puzzles" as well as the chess.com Daily Puzzle. I personally believe most people overestimate tactics in chess, but it is still very helpful and I agree it is still one of the best ways of improving "pattern recognition" for your chess.

I wouldn't put a timeline on how long a certain rating takes. Just set aside the time you can afford to spend on it and enjoy the journey as you keep trying to improve. I improved much faster than most do and I crossed 1600 in probably about 2 years, but then I plateaued in the 1600s range for a long time. I don't remember if months or if it was more than a year, but it was a struggle. Once I finally did push out of this range, then 1700s I didn't stay at for too long and then I was in 1800s for a while. Then 1900s were a long time and later 2000s was a long time, but everyone's chess journey is different just like I mentioned earlier. 

Keep the emphasis on learning and improving. If you do this, then the rating should eventually catch up to you. If you try to chase rating numbers instead, then you are likely to get discouraged at the inevitable huge swings in rating and the frequent emotional rollercoaster. I recommend my tilt playlist and especially the video on my Stop-Loss System for chess:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTXwNMbhsy4uh2e7swLXpYA-7_2AXTeF3 

Thank you so much for your detailed and thoughtful response @KeSetoKaiba.

I really appreciate the advice on focusing on the learning process and not getting too caught up in ratings. I’ve also subscribed to your channel and look forward to checking out your tilt playlist and Stop-Loss System video. Thanks again for taking the time to share all this it means a lot!