It's all a matter of opinion. Someone that just learns the game considers a 1400 player very good. But years ago, Kasparov said (I don't remember the exact quote) that there were about 5 people on the planet that truly understood chess, the rest were just woodpushers.
Perspective.
yup,
to my friends i am chess god, and i am 1500ish otb...
to carlsen i would be an ant to step on
a "good" amateur is probably around 1800-2200
2000 would be considered an expert, correct? I'd say a class A or even a class B player to be a good player. "Person X is a good player, but is no expert."
In the land of perspective, there's at least one good player in each chess game!
It's all a matter of opinion. Someone that just learns the game considers a 1400 player very good. But years ago, Kasparov said (I don't remember the exact quote) that there were about 5 people on the planet that truly understood chess, the rest were just woodpushers.
Perspective.
An intelligent reply and so true.
I've been rated OTB as high as 2150 and as low as 1940 (currently 2002). That means that I haven't lost a game of skittles, against a casual player, in more than 30 years. It also means that I'm not presently good enough to play in my chess club's top team (six boards). I haven't won a big-section tournament in 29 years. "Good" is a very subjective term.
So, addressing the question, what do I think? I reckon that 1750+ means that you have a reasonable grasp of the game.
Thank you all for your inputs. I'm convinced I will have to get used to hovering around 1200 or less. 
Thank you all for your inputs. I'm convinced I will have to get used to hovering around 1200 or less.
You can become a much stronger player if you put some consistent study time to the game. Don't sell yourself short.
I think club chess offers some sort of yardstick. I don't mean a club that would send a team to the European Team Chess Championship but the club that meets in a local library or pub, gets 20 or 30 along to a club night, boasts 50 active members and has a team in the first or second division of the local leagues.
My proposition, drawing on D-S post above, is that if you get into such a club's first team you are a good player.
You are not going to get to play in any representative matches and you won't win the top section of any congress event you enter but you'll expect to win a whole lot more casual games than you lose and you will give a decent game to anyone below master strength.
Again drawing on D-S' post it looks as though we would have to set the bar a little higher than 2000 chess.com. Let's say 2,200 (internet or classic time limit not blitz).
What is the minimum rating to be considered a good player? Would it be at least 2000?
What is the minimum rating to be considered a good player?
A much better question is: What is the minimum # of years and # of visualization patterns that are stored in his 5 memory banks.
A good player will have been playing a minimum of 3 years. And, will have a comprehensive # of visualization patterns stored in his 5 memory banks. The 5 visualization pattern memory banks are the following:
1. Basic checkmate (K+Q v K, K+R v K, K + 2Bs v K, K+B+N v K) visualization pattern memory bank.
2. Tactics visualization pattern memory bank
3. Endgame technique visualization pattern memory bank
4. Opening repertoire visualization pattern memory bank
5. Middle game visualization pattern memory bank
During a 3 yr. period the 5 memory banks are 3/4 filled. At the end of that 3 yr. period the player will attained a rating somewhere between 2000 and 2200.
Average rating+ 1400. Average range = 1200-1600.
agh. im still stuck down at 1270
agh. im still stuck down at 1270
You'll get better!
How do USCF ratings compare to ELO?
A good rating is "the one who wins the game" or brings off a brillant tactic to draw a lost game.
I think the better you are the higher you'd define the rating of a "good" chess player just because like with most other things in life the more proficient you become at something the more you realize how little you know about it or the depth of information that can be known about it. In my view a good chess player would be someone who could give most players a good game, win or lose, excluding for example Grandmasters who are at the very top. Someone 2000 FIDE range seems about right to me.
I think 2000's suck at chess. I say this because I suck at chess and I am over 2000. Also, I beat a 2000+ in a rated tournament on Sunday who played Qe3-g5, and resigned after my reply Rd5xg5.
I regularly drop pieces, rooks, and occasionally even queens. I am clearly not a good player.
Also, I have very little understanding of the opening, often miss basic tactics, miscalculate endgames regularly, and have little concept of planning.
I think you would have to be at least 2350 or so to be a reasonably good player. None of these 'weak masters' should walk around with the ego they have!
I think 2000's suck at chess. I say this because I suck at chess and I am over 2000. Also, I beat a 2000+ in a rated tournament on Sunday who played Qe3-g5, and resigned after my reply Rd5xg5.
I regularly drop pieces, rooks, and occasionally even queens. I am clearly not a good player.
Also, I have very little understanding of the opening, often miss basic tactics, miscalculate endgames regularly, and have little concept of planning.
I think you would have to be at least 2350 or so to be a reasonably good player. None of these 'weak masters' should walk around with the ego they have!
This is exactly what I mean in my previous post! The stronger player you are the higher you'd define a good player as. Cool! :)
as for improving your game ... I recommend playing speed-chess of 10 minute games, practicing a single opening as white, and a couple of defenses as black. This after reading a book or two on basic tactics. And then ... analyze your games! (thus the adage - learn from your mistakes!)
What is the minimum rating to be considered a good player? Would it be at least 2000?