the perfect rapid rating for anyone, is the one they currently have.
What do you think is a good rapid chess rating?
Sort:
if you said it too me in bullet 1000 is a very bad rating so I am going to improve my rating
May 27, 2021
0
#64
MaNv49 wrote:
Super good- 1900
less super good- 1600
ok good 1200-1599
chillax-1000-1199
improve yo-800-999
sucker-500-700
fail-100-499
My rapid score is 547 (sucker) XD
Jun 11, 2021
0
#66
exceptionalfork wrote:
I'd say beginner would be 899 and lower. Intermediate is 900-1499. Advanced is 1500-1899. Expert is 1900-300000000000000
The max is 3200 XD
Jun 11, 2021
0
#68
ChristmasBoy922 wrote:
exceptionalfork wrote:
I'd say beginner would be 899 and lower. Intermediate is 900-1499. Advanced is 1500-1899. Expert is 1900-300000000000000
The max is 3200 XD
3200 rating is not the max. GM @Hikaru is proof of that. Bullet/Blitz ratings use the same rating system as Rapid and his rating has been over 3200 for a while...
@tuxedo_bird
@teju17
@rockstarthefamous123
Jun 11, 2021
0
#72
I'm 1500 rapid & I would say I'm only just starting to get good. I still make mistakes & blunder often but I am tightening up & I now know what I need to fix. All I need is a little more time. Then you are all doomed 
I know I'm very late, but my answer is pretty definitive: 1400-1500. There is a number of things that is special for this rating range:
1) It is the lowest rating at which most players have full grasp of the fundamentals (basic tactics, opening principles, and basic positional principles like king safety).
2) It is the lowest rating at which it is no longer possible to win consistently by making moves that don't improve the position (e.g. by simply waiting for a blunder to happen) or address opponent's ideas.
3) It is the lowest rating at which, visually, the games look "normal" when you skim through them; at lower ratings, the games immediately stand out as amateurish even after the most cursory of looks.
4) It is the lowest rating to which highly advanced players (such as International Masters and Grandmasters) have a non-zero chance of losing.
5) It is the lowest rating at which it is possible to beat most casual players consistently. At lower levels, such as 1200-1400, you'd still beat most casual players a good majority of the time, but will often slip up.
So, for me, the 1400-1500 range is by far the strongest candidate. Two other potential candidates are the 1700-1800 range and 2000+. The former marks the first time that tactical oversights stop being the dominant decisive factor in most games (it is still an important factor at that rating range, but it's no longer the only one). And the latter is a big round number, officially demarcates experts from non-experts in many countries such as the US, and marks the first time theoretical knowledge becomes a significant factor. But still, at least for me, both of these candidate ranges are a lot weaker than the 1400-1500 range.
little_guinea_pig wrote:
I think that a good rapid rating is 2300
Nope, that's wrong, don't flatter yourself. Given that you are "very weak", and your peak Rapid rating is around 2200, this would imply that 2300s are "weak", 2400s are "mediocre", and 2500s are "moderate". All of this would imply that the first good Rapid rating is either 2600, 2700, or 2800 based on how strict you're being. Personally, I think if you can't beat your opponent even if you're given a FULL extra piece, then you can't possibly call yourself a good player, so, IMO, the first good Rapid rating is 3200 (350 rating points ─ or one knight-odds equivalent ─away from the 3550-rated Stockfish 14).
MaNv49 wrote:
Super good- 1900
less super good- 1600
ok good 1200-1599
chillax-1000-1199
improve yo-800-999
sucker-500-700
fail-100-499
It's quite sad if both a 1900 and a 2500 are called "super good" without any difference between the two classes.
Terminator-T800 wrote:
I'm 1500 rapid & I would say I'm only just starting to get good. I still make mistakes & blunder often but I am tightening up & I now know what I need to fix. All I need is a little more time. Then you are all doomed
Oh no! The terminator is coming! Everyone, take cover!
is 149 good
Yes, extremely good. It means you're already 149th in the world! You should consider pursuing a career in chess as it's obvious you've got extreme talent.
Aug 24, 2022
0
#79
maxkho2 wrote:
I know I'm very late, but my answer is pretty definitive: 1400-1500. There is a number of things that is special for this rating range:
1) It is the lowest rating at which most players have full grasp of the fundamentals (basic tactics, opening principles, and basic positional principles like king safety).
2) It is the lowest rating at which it is no longer possible to win consistently by making moves that don't improve the position (e.g. by simply waiting for a blunder to happen) or address opponent's ideas.
3) It is the lowest rating at which, visually, the games look "normal" when you skim through them; at lower ratings, the games immediately stand out as amateurish even after the most cursory of looks.
4) It is the lowest rating to which highly advanced players (such as International Masters and Grandmasters) have a non-zero chance of losing.
5) It is the lowest rating at which it is possible to beat most casual players consistently. At lower levels, such as 1200-1400, you'd still beat most casual players a good majority of the time, but will often slip up.
So, for me, the 1400-1500 range is by far the strongest candidate. Two other potential candidates are the 1700-1800 range and 2000+. The former marks the first time that tactical oversights stop being the dominant decisive factor in most games (it is still an important factor at that rating range, but it's no longer the only one). And the latter is a big round number, officially demarcates experts from non-experts in many countries such as the US, and marks the first time theoretical knowledge becomes a significant factor. But still, at least for me, both of these candidate ranges are a lot weaker than the 1400-1500 range.
I agree a lot with this... not 100%, but it's a quality post with good reasoning.
As for my answer,
My personal feeling (and this is just my subjective feeling) is a player isn't "good" unless they're at least starting to incorporate basic correct strategic ideas... for example in a position where they should attack on the kingside, they at least try to attack on the kingside. The moves can be bad, but the basic understanding is there at least.
If they're just aimlessly shuffling pieces, then try some desperate attack... I guess that's where the pejorative "wood pusher" comes from. They're just pushing pieces around without understanding what's going on.
Aug 24, 2022
0
#80
Of course... most blitz games are silly crap to begin with, and 10|0 is still a fast time control so... maybe it's hard to tell online.
But that's my criteria, and IMO you first start seeing it around 1600 OTB i.e. players who play a non-trash opening, and on move 15 or so they choose a reasonable early middlegame idea and try to follow through on it. Maybe it doesn't become common until 1800 OTB.
my bullet is about 65% rapid is less than 20% well. but to answer the questions 2000+ rapid rating is good