"For what it's worth, I think anyone can reach 2000, and likely 2200, with serious study and play. It does require a lot of work."
Chuddog, would you place an age barrier on this? Do you think someone in their 60's (early or mid 60's can still hit 2000, or even 2200)?
I'm in my mid 50's.
hm, USCF rating of 1854... no, no bias at all, don't worry about it. No, 1800s aren't good. They don't have nearly enough understanding of the game to be considered good. I know you'd like to think of yourself as one, but as somebody who doesn't even think himself to be a good chess player, I can say 1800s are far too weak. I could understand someone pushing for 2000, but 1800 is still so far off from what could even be considered good.
I think it's unfair to say 1800 is not good. It depends on what you're comparing it to.
1800s have quite a bit of knowledge and skill compared to a beginner. Most of them many years, and 10s of thousands of games worth.
This is the problem with these threads. Nobody agrees on the definition of good at all. Of course if you compare them to a beginner they look good, legendary, even! Unfortunately, that doesn't mean anything. What a beginner would think is irrelevant as to what is truly good. 1800 is the first rating I'd consider to be "intermediate." 1800s aren't bad, but they aren't good, either, I can say that. They tend to have some understanding of chess, but they fall short in many areas. I play a lot of 1800s, generally 2-3 a week OTB, and they're never really impressive. At best, they may have a master-level understanding of one of the phases of the game, but just aren't good enough at everything else for it to matter. At 2000, the pieces come together a little bit more, but not quite enough for it to matter, 2200 continues the trend, and then, in my opinion, at 2300, players become generally fairly complete players, and, in my opinion, good players. Of course, there's no set definition of good, and that's the problem.
hm, USCF rating of 1854... no, no bias at all, don't worry about it. No, 1800s aren't good. They don't have nearly enough understanding of the game to be considered good. I know you'd like to think of yourself as one, but as somebody who doesn't even think himself to be a good chess player, I can say 1800s are far too weak. I could understand someone pushing for 2000, but 1800 is still so far off from what could even be considered good.
I think it's unfair to say 1800 is not good. It depends on what you're comparing it to.
1800s have quite a bit of knowledge and skill compared to a beginner. Most of them many years, and 10s of thousands of games worth.
This is the problem with these threads. Nobody agrees on the definition of good at all. Of course if you compare them to a beginner they look good, legendary, even! Unfortunately, that doesn't mean anything. What a beginner would think is irrelevant as to what is truly good. 1800 is the first rating I'd consider to be "intermediate." 1800s aren't bad, but they aren't good, either, I can say that. They tend to have some understanding of chess, but they fall short in many areas. I play a lot of 1800s, generally 2-3 a week OTB, and they're never really impressive. At best, they may have a master-level understanding of one of the phases of the game, but just aren't good enough at everything else for it to matter. At 2000, the pieces come together a little bit more, but not quite enough for it to matter, 2200 continues the trend, and then, in my opinion, at 2300, players become generally fairly complete players, and, in my opinion, good players. Of course, there's no set definition of good, and that's the problem.
I completely agree that it's difficult because no one agrees 
I play 1800s about once a month OTB. I've started to get a bit cheeky and experiment with non-openings against them and I've had good results.
Guess what rating I consider things start to come together? 1900. What rating I would say is fairly complete? 2200. But I'm rated 100-200 points below you OTB.
Guess what rating this Australian GM I saw on youtube say was pretty good but still had a lot of holes? 2400. Guess what rating he said was a complete player (in his words combined tactics with strategy instead of only using tactics)? 2600. And his rating was.... 2500.
See that pattern? Players everywhere do this. They claim players below and near me are bad, while players above me are good. Using a beginner as a reference point makes a lot more sense than this subjective stuff.
But sure, it may not be a good reference point. Lets say the average player after 3 years of work then add 300 rating points to it... well, this still may result in 1800.
hm, USCF rating of 1854... no, no bias at all, don't worry about it. No, 1800s aren't good. They don't have nearly enough understanding of the game to be considered good. I know you'd like to think of yourself as one, but as somebody who doesn't even think himself to be a good chess player, I can say 1800s are far too weak. I could understand someone pushing for 2000, but 1800 is still so far off from what could even be considered good.
I think it's unfair to say 1800 is not good. It depends on what you're comparing it to.
1800s have quite a bit of knowledge and skill compared to a beginner. Most of them many years, and 10s of thousands of games worth.
This is the problem with these threads. Nobody agrees on the definition of good at all. Of course if you compare them to a beginner they look good, legendary, even! Unfortunately, that doesn't mean anything. What a beginner would think is irrelevant as to what is truly good. 1800 is the first rating I'd consider to be "intermediate." 1800s aren't bad, but they aren't good, either, I can say that. They tend to have some understanding of chess, but they fall short in many areas. I play a lot of 1800s, generally 2-3 a week OTB, and they're never really impressive. At best, they may have a master-level understanding of one of the phases of the game, but just aren't good enough at everything else for it to matter. At 2000, the pieces come together a little bit more, but not quite enough for it to matter, 2200 continues the trend, and then, in my opinion, at 2300, players become generally fairly complete players, and, in my opinion, good players. Of course, there's no set definition of good, and that's the problem.
I completely agree that it's difficult because no one agrees
I play 1800s about once a month OTB. I've started to get a bit cheeky and experiment with non-openings against them and I've had good results.
Guess what rating I consider things start to come together? 1900. What rating I would say is fairly complete? 2200. But I'm rated 100-200 points below you OTB.
Guess what rating this Australian GM I saw on youtube say was pretty good but still had a lot of holes? 2400. Guess what rating he said was a complete player (in his words combined tactics with strategy instead of only using tactics)? 2600. And his rating was.... 2500.
See that pattern? Players everywhere do this. They claim players below and near me are bad, while players above me are good. Using a beginner as a reference point makes a lot more sense than this subjective stuff.
But sure, it may not be a good reference point. Lets say the average player after 3 years of work then add 300 rating points to it... well, this still may result in 1800.
Yeap and thats why there should be universal number. 900 will say 1400 are almost gods and so on. So we need to put a line somewhere. To add up on my comment above i would say good would be someone capable of beating title player and capable of holding a draw and outplaying lower rated in worse positions
"For what it's worth, I think anyone can reach 2000, and likely 2200, with serious study and play. It does require a lot of work."
Chuddog, would you place an age barrier on this? Do you think someone in their 60's (early or mid 60's can still hit 2000, or even 2200)?
I'm in my mid 50's.
Assuming you're in good overall health and your mind is still sharp, I'd say so, yes. If you've been doing work that exercises your mind throughout your life, all the more so. The main things that decline with age are tactical vision and physical stamina for tournament play. Strategy and general chess "wisdom" can be grasped at any age. If you're serious about chess improvement, I'd suggest you work with a coach as well as on your own, and play a lot. I'm currently open to new students in case you're interested.
I don't play otb but I think I'm probably close to a class B. If I could make it to class A I would be confident that I could play a decent game of chess, and if someone asked me I might say I'm good at chess, but as of right now I don't say that. Sometimes I'm good and other times, sloppy. I have a lot of work to do before I think I'm good. That said, when i was a class D online I thought class B was indestructible. I guess perspective has a part like someone said.
"good" is relative to your own point of view. Turns out a lot of people think players weaker than themselves are terrible, that they themselves are nothing special, and that players stronger than them are good. Go figure
do you want a quick arbitrary and utterly subjective answer?
1200, 1600, and 2000.
meaning
1200 means you "Have skills" and are better than most people that don't take the game seriously
1600 means you have advanced to a clear "intermediate" player and are taken seriously even in tournaments where stronger players play
2000 means you are advanced- you are one of the more serious players in your city /region and surely striving to play in only strong tournaments
do you want a quick arbitrary and utterly subjective answer?
1200, 1600, and 2000.
meaning
1200 means you "Have skills" and are better than most people that don't take the game seriously
1600 means you have advanced to a clear "intermediate" player and are taken seriously even in tournaments where stronger players play
2000 means you are advanced- you are one of the more serious players in your city /region and surely striving to play in only strong tournaments
I think 2000 or 2200 fide players only know the basics.
Clearly, the OP's question was far too vague. There is an objective definition of "top", e.g. top-10, top-100, top-whatever in state / country / world, but there is no objective definition of "good".
IE, how do you have a nearly 2600 FIDE rating but no title? Or did you just not bother to give your title to chess.com? Just curious.
do you want a quick arbitrary and utterly subjective answer?
1200, 1600, and 2000.
meaning
1200 means you "Have skills" and are better than most people that don't take the game seriously
1600 means you have advanced to a clear "intermediate" player and are taken seriously even in tournaments where stronger players play
2000 means you are advanced- you are one of the more serious players in your city /region and surely striving to play in only strong tournaments
I think 2000 or 2200 fide players only know the basics.
One HAS to assume I think
that anyone serious asking that question IS a beginner. so yes, maybe compared to you. FIDE 2000 is pretty weak.
but not to a beginner.
I completely agree with WCPS. For me, passing 2300 was much harder than passing 2200, and staying above 2300 permanently was even harder. It required a serious jump in chess skill. And getting to >2400 required a serious improvement in skill AND psychology. I find fundamental differences in chess thinking between players ~1800-2300 and those >2300 and esp. >2400. Probably GM norms + going >2600 would require another major jump in both skill and ways of thinking.
For what it's worth, I think anyone can reach 2000, and likely 2200, with serious study and play. It does require a lot of work.
could you please explain the "differences" between a 2000, 2200, and 2400 ?
I mean at that level, don't they basically have the same knowledge? I guess i don't understand what a 2400 would know that a 2000 does not know.
just wondering
April 17th 2017 1388 and counting upward my great friends!
Hi Chuddog,
Thanks for the awesome offer. Here's what I'm pondering. I live in Sacramento, CA which doesn't offer a lot of tournaments. Moreover, and worse, I don't have a lot of time for tournament games. I have a kids, one in high school, one in elementary school. I was thinking heavily about this dilemma. I could do maybe 20 tournament games a year for the short foreseeable future. (I'm not a member of USCF at this time.)
So I don't even have any classical games to send any coach. Last competitive game was in the late 1980's. And I just found out that when I quit/retired, my last rating was 1762 (which astonished me because I have always considered myself a Class C player over the last 20 years, and now a class D player because of all the rust.)
So realistically speaking, given only a 20 tournament game per year schedule, I have to do freakin' great when I do play in order to push up my rating. (Sucks to be so rating conscious at this age, lol).
Anyways, just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your offer.
GM Tal Baron is 2550 and on his videos with Hutch i noticed he knows every opening - both moves - deep - main lines and sidelines even on those he don't play. But since he is 2550 he played so many openings and games and positions vs strong players he just have seen them all. Extraordinary memory and tactical vision. Have you seen his tactic training video? I have seen same tactics - NM solving it, IM solving it and GM solving it and 2650 GM solving it. The 2650 GM smashes tactics so quick that NM ChessNetwork will need 10 minutes or more if he ever find the tactic while GM do it in less than minute the same tactic. The IM will double triple check and will need little more time.
At 2600+ level there is almost no thing as "I don't know" More like "i forgot it"
Clearly, the OP's question was far too vague. There is an objective definition of "top", e.g. top-10, top-100, top-whatever in state / country / world, but there is no objective definition of "good".
IE, how do you have a nearly 2600 FIDE rating but no title? Or did you just not bother to give your title to chess.com? Just curious.
Well, i have another account with my real name, that i use to play Titled Tuesdays. I use this annonimouys account to play safely (since i noticed some of my opponents prepared against me using my chess.com games ) 
GM Tal Baron is 2550 and on his videos with Hutch i noticed he knows every opening - both moves - deep - main lines and sidelines even on those he don't play. But since he is 2550 he played so many openings and games and positions vs strong players he just have seen them all. Extraordinary memory and tactical vision. Have you seen his tactic training video? I have seen same tactics - NM solving it, IM solving it and GM solving it and 2650 GM solving it. The 2650 GM smashes tactics so quick that NM ChessNetwork will need 10 minutes or more if he ever find the tactic while GM do it in less than minute the same tactic. The IM will double triple check and will need little more time.
At 2600+ level there is almost no thing as "I don't know" More like "i forgot it"
I think at 2600 or even at 2700 level there are still a huge amount of things that u dont know. When u get better u realize how few things you know about chess. This is such a complex game
My two cents on the issue of whether 2000-rated players should be considered 'good' (I am rated 2000):
I would class myself as a 'strong patzer', i.e. better than most patzers but still fundamentally a patzer. I tend to regard 2200 as 'good', which suggests that the best definition of 'good' is '200 points ahead of yourself'
2000 FIDE would have to be good as the brave Garry Kasparov refused to play anyone over 2000 in his simuls.
There you go.