what is a good chess rating?
Sort:
You would need to know the distribution of chess player ratings to know how meaningful the percentile is with respect to ability. However, the chess.com pool is almost certainly more gifted at chess than the general population for reasons of practice and interest in chess. Therefore, the percentile may very well understate your true standing in the population. Having a 1150 rapid rating places a player at roughly the 80th percentile. This is a fairly modest rating in relation to experts and the ceiling of the scale, but it’s still probably more than a full standard deviation above chess ability in the population.
tyler9032 wrote:
is it good that I am have a 1850?
You aren't 1850.
Before when I was stuck to 1700 chess.com I thought 2000 is a good rating. Now I changed my mind. I keep on working on it to 2200.
And here I thought being 500 was good
what i have noticed if someone is 950+ they can easily beat players who just know the rules or have played less for fun, so by that logic u can call them 'good' but this is not for professional play
950+ is easily beating someone who doesnt learn things like openings in chess
are you ready?
Bonsai_Dragon wrote:
bluejibb wrote:
The best rating is one that's higher than it was last month. Focus on dailu self improvement, not distant goals or others ratings.
what number is considered a good rating?
This guys right
K
.
Apr 10, 2021
0
#213
Stoolish wrote:
And I'm just 1400. With everyone saying 2000s and 1800s are weak.
lol
meandog89 wrote:
anything over 500 is good
nah its probably around 1600 when you dont blunder anything thats a good chess rating and what im aiming for in a month
I just recently started playing chess and only against computerso far. Is the ELO rating on the different computer opponents somewhat accurate? For example if I beat the 1100 guy quite easily but struggle against the 1300 guy, does it mean that my current ELO is likely to be in the 1200 range?
Apr 12, 2021
0
#217
I have found I can beat the computer on 1500 quite regularly but as you can see, my own rating is only just over 900 so I wouldn't put too much stock in the computer ratings. Take part in the 10 minute arena tournaments for a while to see how your rating might be there. Mine is alway lowered on 10 minute games because I am too slow, I lose so many games on time. You can only get a real rating by playing other people as they can make real mistakes and the computer is only simulating them.
Apr 12, 2021
0
#218
JockeQ wrote:
I just recently started playing chess and only against computerso far. Is the ELO rating on the different computer opponents somewhat accurate? For example if I beat the 1100 guy quite easily but struggle against the 1300 guy, does it mean that my current ELO is likely to be in the 1200 range?
computer ratings are not accurate.
B1ZMARK skrev:
JockeQ wrote:
I just recently started playing chess and only against computerso far. Is the ELO rating on the different computer opponents somewhat accurate? For example if I beat the 1100 guy quite easily but struggle against the 1300 guy, does it mean that my current ELO is likely to be in the 1200 range?
computer ratings are not accurate.
OK that's what I thought too. And they play very strange, mixing quite good moves (from my view at least as a beginner) with very strange and not so human like blunder. I'm surprised they don't try to make a more human like algoritm for a more realistic challenge.
I think 1800 is a good rating and 2000 is obviously even better, false modesty apart I’ve studied maths at one of the top universities in the world and I’ve always been keen on various games like bridge, backgammon and poker and all these are games you study the theory of in books and build up one’s skills based on the best players in history. Unfortunately I didn’t start playing rated tournament chess when very young which is a great help in establishing the patterns in a player’s brain. 1800 was reached from book study then 2000 after a lot of tournament experience. If you look at the early rounds of big open tournaments even the GMs have to play carefully against the 2000s to ensure their victories. The thing is chess is a very highly studied field and the sort of study one needs to improve above the level of 2000 is very hard which for all but the most talented or early starters and is probably not worthwhile for the benefits and falls foul of the law of diminishing returns.