What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?


  • 3 months ago · Quote · #261

    s2t2u2p2

    matzleeach wrote:

    What is consider a good rating on the site. Well, I think if you are rated above 1800 then you are a good chess player. If you are rated 1500-1799 then you are average. What do you think?

    I think using this standard, I'm a bad chess player. I'm going to stop playing chess. Whats the point of playing if you are bad? 

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #262

    TAL_the_destructor

    Ur ratings wont save you idiots, just play like hell and give evry one the death they deserves BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #263

    MatthewA-05

    Im 944. is that good?

  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #264

    Ziryab

    No. I have good ratings, except at bullet, but I'm not very good at chess.

  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #265

    Whip_Kitten

    Ziryab wrote:
    LisaV wrote:

    No, 1810 is awesome.  ;)


    If I were 1810, I would quit and take up something at which I had some skill.

    Should've taken your joking advice.... 

    1631 now  Laughing

  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #266

    Whip_Kitten

    ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

    I see it's return of the five-year-old topic day.

    Timeless!

  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #267

    Ziryab

    I miss Nurse Ratchet.

  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #268

    AlCzervik

    MatthewA-05 wrote:

    Im 944. is that good?

    it's good to one rated 844

  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #269

    QKBKR

    This is a weird thread. Seems like people think their blitz rating here is underrated vs their OTB rating. I'm the absolute opposite. My OTB rating is much much worse than my bullet and blitz ratings here.
  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #270

    AlCzervik

    i haven't read the whole thread, but, i would submit that players run the spectrum. some are better at faster games and vice versa. especially when one considers most of us here are hacks. even though your 1900 rating is impressive (to me) q, very few of us are masters and have command of the game at virtually any time control.

  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #271

    SmyslovFan

    QKBKR, there have been surveys done which shows that on average, blitz ratings here are a bit lower (iirc, less than 100 points difference on average) than OTB ratings. But the correspondence between online blitz and OTB standard chess ratings is the most reliable. Of course, those are just averages, and there are others like you who have the opposite experience. 

    The least reliable measure of OTB strength is of course correspondence chess. 

  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #272

    crossfire125

    Enjoy chess and don't care too much about ratings. I know it's addictive but the most important thing is to love the game. After all , most of us are not professionals and will never be!

  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #273

    QKBKR

    @SmyslovFan, thank you I did read that article and surveys but my experience is completely different. I can't seem to translate blitz strength into OTB strength. It could be something psychological
  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #274

    AlCzervik

    crossfire251 wrote:

    Enjoy chess and don't care too much about ratings.

    this

  • 6 weeks ago · Quote · #275

    Ziryab

    A good rating is always the one that I will have tomorrow, except when I've lost so many games in a row that yesterday's rating was good.

  • 4 weeks ago · Quote · #276

    chessfan999

    A good rating is a rating which is much better than the average rating. Since the average rating of a club player is about 1500-1600, a good rating would be a rating of at least 1700. This doesn't mean that a 1600-1700 player isn't bad - they are in fact identical to 1700 players -  It's just that the results against average club players isn't as convincing.


Back to Top

Post your reply: