"Good" at chess has no specific parameters

I have come to the conclusion that being good at anything isn't concrete.  I am tired with the question people will ask if you are "good" at what you do.  For me, as a college baseball pitcher, people will ask that question. 

What kind of question is that?  What is good?  Good as your last game?  It is a completely open-ended question.

My point is that I am curious what makes someone good at what they do in life, including a game called chess.  I have a philosophical disposition, good or bad, and I'm sure I am not the only person to ponder this question.

What is the definition of good chess? (please center this question around chess)

I'd love to hear your opinions on a question that has no defining answers.

If majority is good with chess, then a 1200 player is good at chess. Right? They are the majority.

depends on what you want to compare it to. i'm compared to some poeple & awful compared to others.

im sure youre a good pitcher compared to me, but dont look as good compared to nolan ryan.

it all depends.

compared to absolute beginners. I think I was beating 1200's within a month.

For me good means you are above 50 % of the people who are kinda serious about what they are doing.

At chess.com I've been serious only about long live games. I'm in the 97th percentile on this site, but that means little. I know that in the chess club I've been visiting I'm slightly above the lowest 50 %. So I'm ok/good at chess.

I'll only say I'm 'good' if I reach a 2000 rating OTB. that's because I know that anything below means making obvious mistakes, even though it is understandable that you slip every now and then. A good player just doesn't make these obvious mistakes. Therefore, for me the ultimate norm is 2000 OTB, while I could answer I'm 'ok' because I'm above 50 %.

It depends on what you think is respectable in the end :).

A 1200 player is good at chess, but isnt proficient at chess.