1972.
what is a good chess rating?
Sort:
DreamscapeHorizons wrote:
1972.
Yea sure, and once you increase it you'll be like, no no it's ____. -_-
Back when I was 1400, I was happy with my rating. Now that I have reached 2100 rapid, I still feel like I suck at chess.
Of course there is no "correct" answer what is good rating. But to say that it's above 2000 is ridiculous. At least for amateurs not playing competitive chess.
Let's say you ask the question what is considered to be a good result for bench press. 2000 rapid rating equals 99.9 percentile. I.e. one in 1000 active players on chess.com is better than you. So you ask 10000 people who work out at gyms, and take the 10th strongest person (99.9 percentile). He probably benchpress at least 180 kg. I'm just guessing but I'm sure it must be at least 180 kg because only at my local gym there are at least 3 or 4 people who bench press 180kg. It's probably closer to 200kg but let's be conservative and say that 99.9 percentile (only counting those who lift weights at the gym) is 180kg.
And I think it would be ridiculous to say that 170kg is not a good bench press. At least not for someone who is not a competitive powerlifter. I think most people agree on this. And I think it's just as ridiculous to say that a good rating on chess.com is above 2000.
Rating is just a meaningless number. Percentiles are a better measure. I would suggest top 20% are "good". 50-80% are "punters". 25-50% are "beginners". Bottom quartile are "muppets". This is highly subjective and I'm sure many will disagree.
2300
Mar 15, 2023
0
#330
Depends. I've only just started playing chess again, used to play a lot as a kid. I'm 930 and have gone from 500 to 930 in 50 days so don't think that is my "actual rating", as of now. But I feel confident I could beat anyone that plays chess casually. You know if you play against a friend who says "they know how to play chess and sometimes plays". That guy, I think I can beat all of those guys.
Mar 15, 2023
0
#331
MrMichael1324 wrote:
Depends. I've only just started playing chess again, used to play a lot as a kid. I'm 930 and have gone from 500 to 930 in 50 days so don't think that is my "actual rating", as of now. But I feel confident I could beat anyone that plays chess casually. You know if you play against a friend who says "they know how to play chess and sometimes plays". That guy, I think I can beat all of those guys.
Yep, and boy do those guys deserve a beating 
.
Mar 15, 2023
0
#332
100-1000=Meh
1000-1400=Ok ur decent
1400-1800=Pretty good
1800-2000=nice
2000-2500=WOW
2500-3000=OKAY IF I PLAY YOU I WILL LOSE
3000-3500=Stop. Please stop already
That is all I ever wanted to be...decent.
corum wrote:
That depends on your perspective.
This is a rough guide for what the ratings mean:
Category Rating range Grandmaster 2600 and up Senior master 2400–2599 Master 2200–2399 Expert 2000–2199 Class A 1800–1999 Class B 1600–1799 Class C under 1600
For me, I think 2000 is a good rating. It signifies that you are an expert. That is where I would like to be. But my rating is 1850. If I was you I might think 1800 was a good rating. Magnus Carlsen would probably think that 2000 was not very good at all. So to answer your question you have to define what 'good' means. However, I hope the above table helps.
I have seen a few different interpretations of the class ratings. In one such view, <1400 is a social player whereas someone >1400 is someone who takes chess a bit more seriously. I typical chess club player is probably around 1600.
That rating system is totally laughable.
K
In my opinion, 1700+ is great
Mar 15, 2023
0
#337
it depends how long youve been playing but i would say 1500+
100+ = stop already
I don't have much experience with chess ELO, but it's really the percentile that matters. People who play WoW arena and get 1800 rating (or around Rival level) are technically in the top 10% of people who actually played arena (which is about 5% of the WoW population on average). That makes them better than closer to 0.5% of the whole population. The guys who make gladiator are in the top 1/2% of the top 5%. So if we're tossing superlatives around, we should still be using "good" AND "great" and some more on top of that, because the chess population works in much the same way. The small percentage of people actually seeking out rating dwarfs the general population.
working hard and practice ig. but that's a whole other question.