13294 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
PG-13 would be the ideal rating on this site. But that's a bit hopeful. Mostly, I'm happy if its kept rated-R.
Can't get any worse than rated R
R is the only rating that suggests a movie is worth my time.
You would miss out on some great movies if that's true.
I still believe strongly that chess ratings are generally good for chess. Yes, they are elitist, but that's the fault of the game itself. While almost anyone can play chess, few can play it well.
I also still stand by my early remark: a good rating is whatever your best rating is +200.
With the proper bribes, several good movies have come out as PG.
I think 9999 (which is impossible) is the best rating
lol that's stupid...even reaching 3,000 is quite difficult. :P
my opinion is that being considered a good player isn't to do with scores. rating isnt important therefore resigning sometimes simply means unforeseeable circumstances arose.
A good rating is one which you yourself feel represents the best you can achieve ... Me I follow "You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." Albert Einstein
Problem: I have ocercome the first challenfe but oscilate around 1350 and guess will never achieve the second ... but its still a buzz when I beat someone 100 points higher than me and a downer when someone 100 pounts worse than me .. play and enjoy
Pink elephants love to eat stockfish for breakfast. That's my 2 cents
1600 is the average rating I believe
No, the average ratings for this site according to their own stats are:
You can see the stats if you click Play >> Live Chess then go down to "View Players"
Hehehe! An "acceptable" rating is whatever my rating is +100!
This sounds right to me.
A lof folks here don't realize that there's a big discrepancy is the ratings, particular in that blitz ratings here are def under-rated compared to the others. Play a 1200 blitz here and he'll be wayyy stronger than a 1200 slow-move player, and def as strong as a USCF 1400 OTB. (When I was 1450 USCF tournament play, I was probably as strong as a 1100 blitz player here on chess.com)
I thought I was a pretty good player most of my life because I could beat my friends, most casual players I came across, and I could beat my older brothers who started teaching me the rules of chess at the very young age of 3yrs old.
This took me through most of my life as a fairly strong non-studied player. I could beat almost anyone I had ever played. I even came across a self-proclaimed Life Master (personally, he came across more as just a pot-head to me....lol) in my mid 20s who I managed to gain a draw with after losing to him about 15 games in a row. He was impressed with my non-educated play, in that because I had never studied a chess book or any openings, middle or end game literature.
Anyway, this life master convinced me that I should start playing with a chess group that played at UW Madison. I went and joined their group and lost my first 9 tournament games in a row to players ranging anywhere from 1400-2000. I had no idea what the numbers even meant. It was an extremely humbling experience that made me realize how little I actually knew about chess. I do remember getting my first USCF rating from it and was surprised to see it was 1500; even though I hadn't won a single game. This makes me realize that without book knowledge a 1500 rating is achievable. Anything above that seems to take study.
25 years later, and the occasional study of things like the e4 and d4 openings, as well as tactics and strategies, my rating has jumped a whole 200 points to 1700. Yeah, not so good. haha! Chess takes a lot of commiment I never seemed to be able to completely commit an extended amount of time too. But I still love to play, and I guess I will have to be content as just 1700 rated player. :)
You can view a distribution on ratings on here (http://www.chess.com/echess/players.html). It follows pretty typical Gaussian (aka "Bell) distribution, so if "good" is considered being in the top quarter, or tenth, or whatever you can go and find it yourself. It seems average on here is centered at 1310.
Why restart this thread. There's too much autism here. Just play and chill.
I always thought good was 1600-1700.
anywhere above 1800 to me is good enough.
I clicked on the link and it came up as missing page. if you would please check and repost.
That's because there is a parenthesis at the end of the url.
2/7/2016 - Quick And Painless
by 888cayden 2 minutes ago
Computer Locking Up
by Drachnokov 3 minutes ago
Connection problems or cheating?
by Martin_Stahl 3 minutes ago
State of Chess.com Round Two! Post your questions here:
by Commander_Riker 4 minutes ago
King of the hill
by batgirl 5 minutes ago
Online chess filters
by Martin_Stahl 8 minutes ago
A Vintage American Drueke Set
by cgrau 9 minutes ago
Why is it that the Live Chess Standard category encompasses so many time limits?
by chesster3145 11 minutes ago
The Backyard Professor
by X_PLAYER_J_X 11 minutes ago
Illegal games :)
by etc2000chess 11 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!