what is a good chess rating?

wsonner

You're only as good as your last game happy.png.

B1ZMARK

So I’d be lucky

Stoolish

And I'm just 1400. With everyone saying 2000s and 1800s are weak.

 

B1ZMARK
Stoolish wrote:

And I'm just 1400. With everyone saying 2000s and 1800s are weak.

lol

meandog89

anything over 500 is good wink.png

Thechezzbozz
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

JockeQ

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?

Martin-J

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.

B1ZMARK
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.

JockeQ
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. 

speeduptheserver
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. 

It's not just your point of view, computers DO combine strong and weak moves at easier playing levels, terribly mimicking human chess. It's difficult to program an algorithm that neglects tactical combinations (which is more representative of human error), even after all these years.