what is a good chess rating?

This is probably the most useful guide for anyone wanting to know where they stand. Just to clarify: an 800 rating on chess.com is probably more like 600 on these USCF ratings, and thus in the bottom 20% of ALL chess players? I don't believe this would be true of 2015 onwards where so many play online.... Is there an up to date version of this chart and preferably an online one... Can you imagine the demograph that the 2004 survey would have captured back before online chess was even a thing... All hardcore cardigan types who actually study and probably do mindfulness work

this is super helpful thank you.  I try to do arrows and all that but I sometimes run out of time in a 10-minute game. I also really like to watch Gotham chess he is very clear.  

A good chess rating is really about perspective and is always relative to the person looking at the rating. For a non-chess player, anything 1000+ would probably be considered good. For me, who is stuck in the 1600-1800 range, anything 2000+ is pretty good and most everything below 1600 is not that good. For a grandmaster, anything below probably 2300 is garbage. 

This thread is hilarious. You have the cumulative distribution. Why get stuck in semantics and subjectivity. A top 10% is a top 10%, no more no less. Now each can choose a word for that. I might see "good" what you might like "meh" . 

A good chess rating is a national elo or FIDE elo. Local rating is some virtual points with exactly zero value. Just play chess for joy here. Should you wish to try playing chess more seriously join a real club (physical not inet one) and then deal with elo. Playing internet chess for some virtual rating is just funny. Will you have a better life with it, will you buy something in supermarket with it or what do you need it for? Take it like a pairing mechanism to play similarly strong opponents, this is what you need. You dont need playing much stronger or weaker ones...

An internet rating does have value if you try best. 

1600

Chess focuses my mind and takes me away from the everyday onslaught of crap.   In this light, it serves very much the same purpose as meditation which everyone raves about.  At worst, It beats drinking hehe!

Your own personal understanding of what "good" is will change the more you play (provided you get better as time goes by).  When I first started, I thought that 1800 was good.   Then after achieving that many years ago and quickly attaining 2000, I then changed my outlook and thought 2000 was the new "good".  For the past 10 years (minus the last 6 months) I have been a 2250 player.  I redefined what I thought was "good" to 2250.  Today, I achieved my highest rating in my life, 2504.  Honestly, I cannot say that anything under 2400 is "good" considering the leaps and bounds that I have made over the past 6 months in my understanding and thought progress of the game.  The difference between 2400 and 2200 is like the difference between a professional sports team playing against a college team.  The 2200 player will get slaughtered every time.  If I am fortunate enough to achieve 2600 or even higher, I will be able to speak of the difference between 2600 and 2400.  I can only speak about my experience of playing for 37 years and moving up slowly but surely along the rating's ladder to 2504.  

Said the guy with the small pp

My chess.com rating is about double my actual rating of 740.

there's no evidence whatsoever that chess.com ratings are substantially higher than FIDE or USCF ratings.  I'm rated 2465, beat 2 GMs today (got 2 of 3 from 1 GM and beat another 1-0).  If my true rating is really 2165-2265, there's no way I beat 2 GMS 3 out of 4 games.  

Bro... holy... dayum. At least you have skill to show for it. That's a lot of pawn pushing.

is it good that I am have a 1850?

Any chess rating higher than mine is good. Any chess rating higher than mine is bad.

Of course, this is from my perspective.

Yes, if you asked me from a year ago

If you play chess as a profession, then anything under 2700 is just terrible. And if you play just for fun, rating doesn't matter; what matters is whether or not you are having fun. Being 1800 and not having fun is much worse than being 1200 and having fun. Of course, being 1800 and having fun is better! 

I'm about 980 ish, I can't see it improving much but I do enjoy it and with online games I don't generally have to suffer the ignominy of getting stuffed by 1600, 1800, etc. as I get matched against similar standard players; this keeps it enjoyable, with the chance of improvement. If the fact that one is not enjoying it because ones rating is not high enough then perhaps it's time to take up another hobby.

LOL. If chess.com is that much higher, then my USCF rating is negative. Ha!

Changed my mind 2300 is a good rating