I don't consider anything below 2200 USCF / about 2100 FIDE to be "advanced".
Too many silly mistakes below that level.
what is a good chess rating?
Sort:
Sqod wrote:
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
I dont agree with your conclutions.
Well, you're relying on your own opinion to override objective mathematics, which isn't very logical or productive for anyone. Maybe you're objecting to teachers grading tests where 1.5 standard deviations is considered "B," or "good." If that's the basis of your foundation, that's fine, but then you're trying to override the opinion of probably the majority of the teachers on the planet, which isn't wise, either. If you have such an overall objection then you should state the exact basis of it and suggest an alternative system, or maybe come up with your own vocabulary that is more specific than some general word like "good."
Universityofpawns understood my point, and my point is that they who play in tournaments OTB already are good when they list in the tournaments. A 2000+ rated player (Trond Støre) I met told me that he considered all tournament players for good. When I played Oslo Chess Festival 2016, I was impressed by the level of the lowest rated small girls. One was at 1095, and the other not rated yet. They played very good chess, and they some months later finished with gold and silver in the Norwegian Championship for girls under 10 years. Of course we under 1650 isn't good every day and every game. I had a terrible loss in that same tournament against a 2000+. I was not phsyicically settled. When comparing to school grades, all tournament players are A , the otb-tournament players, are the same kids that gets selected to represent their schools in big competitions (A-students). The non-rated Livia Lindstad, finished second last among they who completed Oslo Chess Festival, and became Norwegian under 10 girl champion some months later. Dont tell me that she is below A. I hope she continues chess , because I see that she is made of GM materials. Now she is at FIDE 1162. She did also play a double game unofficially, where she decided every second move and her partner every second. They did draw a team that probably had an average rating over 2000. Her partner was the best she could find. And he (Magnus Carlsen)was happy with her. The 1277 rated Hy Chang Vo won the prize for most beautiful game in round 8. He had a fantastic bishop sacrifice that lead to a winning game. Norwegian Champion IM (now GM) Johan Salomon looked at the game , and was impressed. Dont tell me that Hy (now 1359)is below A-grade. Elias Hulleberg Sidali also was below 1650 back then (1572), and he drew several strong players, including a WIM. In december he drew an IM. He is above 1650 (1724)now.
intermediatedinoz wrote:
I'm sure you will reach 2200 one day. Keep trying.
lol
Thanks, I am not sure myself, but I will try. As I said my goal is CM when I reach the age of 93, but if I die or get Alzheimer it won't go.
Apr 19, 2017
0
#65
What does good mean? . . .
I like this explanation given . . .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I see "good" as a description you often need to use in relation to something else. .
Rough examples (don't take these literally) . .
2000 is very bad compared to 2800 . . .
2000 is bad compared to 2400 . . .
2000 is okay compared to 2000 . . .
2000 is good compared to 1600 . . .
2000 is very good compared to 1200. . .
So what is my 1600 compared to what? . .
I used. to think I wanted to be 1800 + when I was 1400 . . But getting there looks like is to hard to reach . . I seem to be creeping to slow, I'm running out of time, since I'm 79 1/2 YEARS old . . .
DENVER
17
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
I don't consider anything below 2200 USCF / about 2100 FIDE to be "advanced".
Too many silly mistakes below that level.
I don't even consider 2200-2300 to be advanced.
Apr 19, 2017
0
#68
universityofpawns wrote:
Sqod: The average 1500 rating you use for your statistical model is among Adult OTB tournament players....since adult tournament players are just a small subset of all chess players and tend to be at the upper end of the spectrum your analysis is flawed...it is even further flawed because the standard deviation model is based on a normal bell curve when in fact the curve of chess ratings is actually skewed toward the lower end (i.e. the mode is lower than the mean). The original question was what is considered a "good" rating, if the question was "what is considered a good rating among adult OTB tournament players" your model would more closely approximate the truth, but would still be over-stated somewhat because the distribution is not normal. A good rating is more like 1500-1600 because many players would not even consider playing OTB tournament chess because they know they would get creamed every game and how much "fun" could that possibly be?
Yes, as others are saying, you need to establish the base population in order to define terms like "good." I chose a very reasonable population, and one that had statistics readily available. If you want to change that sampling population, that's fine, but your answer probably won't be very different than what I calculated, and you'll have to find the data and do the work yourself.
zac_howland wrote:
All this math is completely unnecessary. "good" is very easy to define: It starts around 200 points higher than whatever your current rating is
+1
That's more or less how I've felt ever since I started playing chess here.
Apr 19, 2017
0
#70
1800 USCF is at least a pretty respectable accomplishment
I would also apply the 'good' label to some people who have more potential than their rating suggests (but may be inconsistent, etc.)
Apr 19, 2017
0
#71
Destroyer_Mark_1420 wrote:
1800 is 62% of the way to the highest rating ever, APPROXIMATELY 2870. After intense research, only 23% of chess players make it this high. 62/100 x 23/100= 1426/10000. Which means only about 14% of people get above 1800. So, I think 1800 is good.
1800 is more like 0% of the way for most people, and like 5% or something for people who have the potential to get 2800.
Destroyer_Mark_1420 wrote:
1800 is 62% of the way to the highest rating ever, APPROXIMATELY 2870. After intense research, only 23% of chess players make it this high. 62/100 x 23/100= 1426/10000. Which means only about 14% of people get above 1800. So, I think 1800 is good.
Oh wow! Your math is perfect!
Destroyer_Mark_1420 wrote:
Note, Macer, that I said about
Oh, I'm sorry... your math is about perfect!
Apr 19, 2017
0
#74
Maybe Chess can be divided by 3. All 3 parts can be considered more or less good except the very low rated.
Part one where chess is played from random moving the pieces to almost full board awerenes most of the game (not hanging free pieces unprovoked). Spotting free pieces, obvious easy tactical combinations (knight fork) with basic opening principle knowledge, basic endgame knowledge - but pretty much wood pushers. You just make a move, because it is your move - no much strategy or logic there. With a lot of i don't know what to do in many cases. I think that chess is played from 800 - 1800 level or so.
Then part 2. more advanced tactics, opening knowledge, various endgame knowledge , some strategic ideas, concepts, patterns, understanding some positions what to do, havin a plan, putting pieces on better squares, avoiding holes in positions, undestanding pawns structures/chains etc playing without major blunders. I think this can be from 1800 all the way up to 2300.
Part 3 is where chess is played with almost full understanding of what you are doing with deep accurate calculation It goes 2400-2800.
Destroyer_Mark_1420 wrote:
1800 is 62% of the way to the highest rating ever
Elo is not linear. It's closer to exponential. This is what the 'I WANNA BE A GM!!' posters cannot grasp.
Apr 20, 2017
0
#76
AIM-AceMove wrote:
Maybe Chess can be divided by 3. All 3 parts can be considered more or less good except the very low rated.
Part one where chess is played from random moving the pieces to almost full board awerenes most of the game (not hanging free pieces unprovoked). Spotting free pieces, obvious easy tactical combinations (knight fork) with basic opening principle knowledge, basic endgame knowledge - but pretty much wood pushers. You just make a move, because it is your move - no much strategy or logic there. With a lot of i don't know what to do in many cases. I think that chess is played from 800 - 1800 level or so.
Then part 2. more advanced tactics, opening knowledge, various endgame knowledge , some strategic ideas, concepts, patterns, understanding some positions what to do, havin a plan, putting pieces on better squares, avoiding holes in positions, undestanding pawns structures/chains etc playing without major blunders. I think this can be from 1800 all the way up to 2300.
Part 3 is where chess is played with almost full understanding of what you are doing with deep accurate calculation It goes 2400-2800.
"Part 3 is where chess is played with almost full understanding of what you are doing with deep accurate calculation It goes 2400-2800"
My rating is +2500 but i feel i am far from full or even decent understanding, so i have to disagree with you.
The Yanks say, "everyone below GM is a loser patzer", the Limeys say, "I'm a loser patzer", the Scandinavians say, "everyone is good". I'm moving to Norway 
.
"2017 ranking. As of the 2017 report Norway is the overall happiest country in the world, even though oil prices have dropped. Close behind are Denmark,Iceland and Switzerland in a tight pack.
World Happiness Report - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report"
Mal_Smith wrote:
The Yanks say, "everyone below GM is a loser patzer", the Limeys say, "I'm a loser patzer", the Scandinavians say, "everyone is good". I'm moving to Norway .
"2017 ranking. As of the 2017 report Norway is the overall happiest country in the world, even though oil prices have dropped. Close behind are Denmark,Iceland and Switzerland in a tight pack.
World Happiness Report - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report"
Mal, you are spot on ,but unfortunately not all Scandinavians has my laid-back attitude. I come from a teachers home, and my parents pedagogic mindset was not too much elitist. My lady is Russian, and I have observed that friends of her has grown up in families where the ambitions were too rough. A friend of her became nr 2 in a gigant mathematics contest for the whole Novosibirsk (a huge city with som million peoples). When she came home her parents were mad at her for not winning.
I belive that its wise not to put too hard expectations to avoid psychical illness and unhappiness. Be happy with small improvements, and also accept getting worse. Getting worse is something that trows Norwegian chess players off the board. Middle-aged men rated 1800 loses to children, loses rating, and stops playing to preserve their rating. Unfortunately rating is too much important in some clubs. The value of a human should not be measured in rating points or in dollar fortune, but in some environments it happens to some extent.
In my club there are members in all ages, from ca 6 to ca 85. It is normal to lose some rating points when the higher age kicks in. Hard won points. It is so important to be willing to let those points go, and just enjoy the chess.
I am joking about CM-title at 93, but I realize that its more likely that I lose strength when I get old. When I lose those points, I better should enjoy the beauty of my opponents play, than getting sad.
I write as if I am the best loser in the world. Unfortunately thats not true. It does hurt to lose.
There are worse losers than me in Scandinavia. Magnus Carlsen is considered a bad loser. He gets very bad feelings when losing, and dont necessarily bother with controlling his reactions. Its about his attitude, not about where he comes from.
But generally spoken, I think you are right that the Scandinavian attitude is softer, less ambitious, more laid-back.
But I am ambitious. And at the same time I see strength at low levels.
Chess-skills is comparable with mathematics. Its something you builds up during years. All ambitious players wants to climb up a step. It is good if we can be satisfied with our current level, and at the same time work to improve. Such mindset might help sleeping better at night, and if you sleep good enough, you blunder less and can make harder calculations.
There are 3 types of people who attend weddings.
1) The groom's family and friends
2) The bride's family and friends
3) The people who show up for free food and alcohol
so in summary
Under 1000 = poor understanding of opening play, poor understanding of middle game play, poor understanding of endgame play, drop pieces and pawns regularly, miss basic tactics
1200-1600 = basic understanding of opening play, basic understanding of middle game play, poor understanding of endgame play, drop pawns regularly, miss complex tactics
1601-1999 = good understanding of opening play, basic understanding of middle game play, basic understanding of endgame play, rarely drop anything in unforced lines, sometimes find complex tactics
2000 - 2200 = solid opening play, good understanding of middle game play, basic understanding of endgame play, don't drop unforced pieces, regularly find complex tactics
2200 - 2400 = solid opening play, solid middle game play, good to solid endgame play, doesn't drop pieces or miss tactics.
2400 - 2800 = has the first 30 moves of their favorite opening memorized. has no life except studying 8 hours on chess.
I don't understand why GMs study 8 hours a day on chess ? Because there is a limit to chess knowledge. it seems like there is a limit to how much knowledge your brain can assimilate both in a day and also over your lifetime. for example, let says after 4 hours continue chess study, you get fatigue. so hours 5 through 8 is waste of time during the day because the person is not going to learn anything because the brain is tired and needs to do something fun like play bingo.
in economics, this is like measuring how much value you are getting in incremental increases. at a 2500 rating you have to have such a vast amount of information, how does studying 8 hours a day even help you when you have less information to acquire. Whereas, a 1200 has a lot of information/knowledge to gain from studying 8 hours a day because he does not know anything as much as the 2500 player.
For example,
the learning ratio can be estimated as:
I C E R = ( C 1 − C 0 ) ( E 1 − E 0 ) {\displaystyle ICER={\frac {(C_{1}-C_{0})}{(E_{1}-E_{0})}}} 
,
where C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} 
and E 1 {\displaystyle E_{1}} 
are the cost and effect in studying and where C 0 {\textstyle C_{0}} 
and E 0 {\textstyle E_{0}} 
are the cost and effect in current status.[1] Costs are usually described in monetary units, while effects can be measured in terms of health status or another outcome of interest. A common application of the ICER is in cost-utility analysis, in which case the ICER is synonymous with the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.
The ICER can be used as a decision rule in resource allocation. If a decision-maker is able to establish a willingness-to-pay value for the outcome of interest, it is possible to adopt this value as a threshold. If for a given intervention the ICER is above this threshold it will be deemed too expensive and thus should not be funded, whereas if the ICER lies below the threshold the intervention can be judged cost-effective. This approach has to some extent been adopted in relation to QALYs; for example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) adopts a nominal cost-per-QALY threshold of £20,000 to £30,000.[2] As such, the ICER facilitates comparison of interventions across various disease states and treatments. In 2009, NICE set the nominal cost-per-QALY threshold at £50,000 for end-of-life care because dying patients typically benefit from any treatment for a matter of months, making the treatment's QALYs small.[3] In 2016, NICE set the cost-per-QALY threshold at £100,000 for treatments for rare conditions because, otherwise, drugs for a small number of patients would not be profitable.[3] The use of ICERs therefore provides an opportunity to help contain health care costs while minimizing adverse health consequences.[4] Treatments for patients who are near death offer few QALYs simply because the typical patient has only months left to benefit from treatment. They also provide to policy makers information on where resources should be allocated when they are limited.[5] As health care costs have continued to rise, many new clinical trials are attempting to integrate ICER into results to provide more evidence of potential benefit.[6]
Controversies
Many people feel that basing health care interventions on cost-effectiveness is a type of health care rationing and have expressed concern that using ICER will limit the amount or types of treatments and interventions available to patients.[5] Currently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of England’s National Health Service (NHS) uses cost-effectiveness studies to determine if new treatments or therapies provide better value relative to the treatment that is currently in use. With the number of cost-effectiveness studies rising, it is expected for a cost-effectiveness ratio threshold to be established for the acceptance of reimbursement or formulary listing. However, there is currently no evidence that health care systems have determined such a threshold;[7] without such a standard, the interpretation of ICER analyses may not be uniform.
The concern that ICER may lead to rationing has affected policy makers in the United States. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 provided for the creation of the independent Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The Senate Finance Committee in writing PPACA forbade PCORI from using “dollars-per-quality adjusted life year (or similar measure that discounts the value of a life because of an individual’s disability) as a threshold to establish what type of health care is cost effective or recommended.”[8]
If some anecdotal evidence (from a sample size of one) will help support Sqod's hypothesis: his gradings place me somewhere between "terrible" and "one step worse than terrible". That sounds about right!