different for everybody but for me 2200+
What do you think is a respectable rating in blitz?
Sort:
Feb 9, 2024
0
#4
It depends: 1400-1500 have already put in some work and understand the game.
2200+ are mostly dangerous players, where it‘s easy for me to lose against.
2600+ never got there and they almost always beat me.
But i think every rating should be respected. It‘s just a number and most people play for fun
2200+ are mostly dangerous players, where it‘s easy for me to lose against.
2600+ never got there and they almost always beat me.
But i think every rating should be respected. It‘s just a number and most people play for fun
onlyc6 can you list some things that signify to you understanding the game?................. I am low rated because I make silly mistakes and don't see things coming, but think I have quite a good understanding of the game, so will be interested to see how a higher rated player defines it.
Feb 9, 2024
0
#7
@eques_99 not easy to say. Maybe when games are decided by outplaying your opponent or forcing your opponent into mistakes. At beginner level almost all games are decided by random bluders, but at higher rating, it will be a mix of both.
Another point is that people start to get a feeling where pieces belong. Sometimes the estimations can be wrong, but there is some intuition.
Another point is that people start to get a feeling where pieces belong. Sometimes the estimations can be wrong, but there is some intuition.
I’d say 2200 blitz is where it’s at
Whoever said that a rating is just a number needs to rethink that comment. A rating represents a player's ability in relation to other players. It's a clear indication of relative strength. Let's not kid ourselves. A 900 rated player is pretty awful, a 1200 player is weak and will almost certainly blunder several times in a game, a 1600 has almost certainly studied , knows some basic openings and traps, is familiar with the most common tactics, has a basic notion of strategy and so is on the path towards becoming decent. I would argue that 1800 is "respectable" given that you don't get there without studying and you already possess a basic understanding of chess principles while rarely blundering an entire piece firing a game. 2000 is definitely good, and anyone with that rating would be able to say with confidence that they are reasonably strong. Anything above that is obviously very strong, though I fully understand that there's a huge difference between 2200 and 2600.
Sep 29, 2024
0
#12
countertheory wrote:
Whoever said that a rating is just a number needs to rethink that comment. A rating represents a player's ability in relation to other players. It's a clear indication of relative strength. Let's not kid ourselves. A 900 rated player is pretty awful, a 1200 player is weak and will almost certainly blunder several times in a game, a 1600 has almost certainly studied , knows some basic openings and traps, is familiar with the most common tactics, has a basic notion of strategy and so is on the path towards becoming decent. I would argue that 1800 is "respectable" given that you don't get there without studying and you already possess a basic understanding of chess principles while rarely blundering an entire piece firing a game. 2000 is definitely good, and anyone with that rating would be able to say with confidence that they are reasonably strong. Anything above that is obviously very strong, though I fully understand that there's a huge difference between 2200 and 2600.
My blitz 958 rating is the 75% percentile according to Chess.Com. That means I'm as good as or better than 75% of rated chess players in the world. Not sure if that really is "awful." Certainly not good as compared to the 5-10% end of the bell curve, but in the big picture, it isn't.
I remember the kids that moved their lips when they read in elementary school. Some poked fun at them. I didn't.
I think anyone playing chess regularly ought to be respected regardless of their individual strengths and limitations. Treating that one guy you know who has played for 10 years and never crossed 1200 with contempt is just lame. So what if you're talented or have time to invest in this boardgame.
So long as the rating a person has was earned fairly, I'll respect it.
2901
Nope 3000 is the respected rating
aki wrote:
3600
3601
571392206556693258741811450885960056275859378275155604953913124228682199527493648173768191654015893272343702634569422734202932533446853282539145900053401635471215030939295217844638166945540898871785975491377126173017319732684941004320923392861128682659934107298246847825462748524753733144748243994833178252924717686947017668950695769745932379498169925731152695470860194913355645846814197422223328954349058037822804987123183811443906080933952520368731501979693792701029496627156395132592212449256112250379488028009487955303252366010712969779428759132400395850722810447541119969663119499899455809990291949900358649200447344462825960199255614675847726501928452340997015571761590692740905508090184545042621049589714806687187954750061541387446986881770311542301909283931895651998181124304716024300054333156726080389501309140880983710660181385155815488891824502651251800616045538931828432193397992203006304710957179045970798603159465035011438143782191605444991791279289058638055877654332785475314
JBarryChess wrote:
countertheory wrote:
Whoever said that a rating is just a number needs to rethink that comment. A rating represents a player's ability in relation to other players. It's a clear indication of relative strength. Let's not kid ourselves. A 900 rated player is pretty awful, a 1200 player is weak and will almost certainly blunder several times in a game, a 1600 has almost certainly studied , knows some basic openings and traps, is familiar with the most common tactics, has a basic notion of strategy and so is on the path towards becoming decent. I would argue that 1800 is "respectable" given that you don't get there without studying and you already possess a basic understanding of chess principles while rarely blundering an entire piece firing a game. 2000 is definitely good, and anyone with that rating would be able to say with confidence that they are reasonably strong. Anything above that is obviously very strong, though I fully understand that there's a huge difference between 2200 and 2600.
My blitz 958 rating is the 75% percentile according to Chess.Com. That means I'm as good as or better than 75% of rated chess players in the world. Not sure if that really is "awful." Certainly not good as compared to the 5-10% end of the bell curve, but in the big picture, it isn't.
I remember the kids that moved their lips when they read in elementary school. Some poked fun at them. I didn't.
Well, if you think less than 1,000 on chess.com is "decent", I'm happy that you are contented with so little. My rating on the account that I'm using to post this comment is about 1500-1600 for bullet, which I consider pretty awful. Just goes to show that "decent" is subjective.
Says in title