What elo is a good elo to you?

Bro how the heck have you reached 2600 and not tried to get a title yet??

Of course it's subjective, but I'd look at the percentile of each rating. If you're in the top 40% (not 50%, to account for throwaway accounts etc) then you're at least above average. You could argue that is "good". Then again, on my ratings I'm in the top 2% of rapid players and top 10% of blitz and in no way would consider myself to be a good player.

I've heard people say that "real chess" begins at around 1500, and that at that rating the games aren't just being won/lost because someone hangs their queen in a single move any more. Sadly, my experience hasn't really aligned with that. Even when I reached 1600 rapid, games were being won/lost based on who blundered a piece first quite often.

It may also make sense to consider your rating in the context of how long you've been playing and how seriously you take the game. If you only learned how the pieces move a week ago and you're 1000, that's very impressive. If you've been playing seriously for years, trying very hard to improve and studying for hours daily and you're 1600, that's pretty bad.

My take on it is that it doesn't really matter. See your rating for what it is: a tool for matching you against similarly skilled players against whom you will have even and fun games. Try not to worry about it too much beyond that.

my current elo at any time.LOL

appearently 700 is good its better then half the people who know how to play chess though I think what a great rating is 1800 it means you know most of what's going on how the game works 100s of tactics and your an advanced player cuz this is 1800 elo chess which looks pretty smart

and this is just me playing komodo14

1600+ fide i think are good players. i would not think anyone is good just by their online ratings bc i don't think it means anything.

wait until you see 600 elo

Ah yes, Undeveloping your knight to defend a stupid pawn that you could have defended by castling ur king! How did u know exactly what i was thinking???

Talking about move 13

your online rating is actually lower than how well you play

the reason I undeveloped my knight to defend the pawn cuz if he took my knight I take back with the pawn and now I have a HUGE WEAKNESS IN MY PAWN STRUCTURE a pawn up is still winning especcially in the endgame plus what was my knight doing it was also a blockade for the pawn I was keeping the pawn and not doubling it here that was the best move according to stockfish in game review if I castled he took night I took back Im worse than black cuz my king is out in the open and its not the endgame.

also Im 975 elo your 600 elo what the heck are you talking about so you castle advantage is now -2.00

why not I play the 2000 elo bot

sorry Im having trouble with that but 2000 elo is great it understands hundreds of tactics how the opening works and is very great at chess I had 92% accuracy it had 89%

It depends. A 2000 player here could just be a flagger or it could be a strong player.

Bishop's are actually better, So sometimes trading is bad, This is why you see some people drop back with their bishop instead of taking the knight, also u did have Ne2 but i dont expect you to block in ur bishop

yes but having a huge weakness in your pawn structure is worse then trading your bishop for a knight usually this is a great example

black is worse cuz of his isolated doubled pawns also your idea doesn't work

here lets ask stockfish in this scenario your right but most of the time you'd be wrong

To me:

1800+ means you are a decent player,

2000+ very good

2200+ can beat anyone in a short time control

2400+ arguably clinically insane

2600+ arguably not human