What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?

1800+

I struggled at 1250 - 1450 for years ... always wondering how better players were able to destroy me.  Then one day I suddenly found myself playing at 1600, and I really am not sure how it happened, other than to say I started paying more attention.

As for your 'autopilot' comment, I respectfully disagree.  Perhaps they know a certain opening, and thus can play the first dozen moves or so without thinking much.  But in reality, this is considered the "minimum" a good player should know!  The real distinction of better players has very little to do with autopilot.

Autopilot is a strange and inaccurate metaphor for pattern recognition.

you are right, the term doesn't fit well. 

In the United States if you ask someone if they play chess and they say "no," it's because they don't know how the horsey moves. In Russia, if you ask someone if they play chess and they say "no," it's because they're only 1600.

Exageration.

2700+is best.

A salient description of the cultural chasm that separates the culture of chess in America from the culture of chess in countries where chess is valued.

How are the Russians at American football?  

Some guy from Russia told me that that's no longer true.

If 2700 is the highest, i guess good rating should be considered everything above 1350

I live in Phuket, Thailand, home to many Russians, and NONE of my Russian friends play chess!

That's why they got kicked out.

I have the worst rating on this site. In my opinion, the definition of a good chess rating lies on the player him/herself. Any rating above yours is a good rating, regardless of what your own rating is.

... this is funny :)

(and mastership - I agree!)

How about the highest possible? :)

As i have commented on forums similiar to this one, your current rating is always the "best" one. No site or rating system can tell accurately your potential chess ability. Just what what's now. You are as good as you are right now. If it's 1150 and you've won 75% you are awesome. I wouldn't/haven't be down on myself if i'm not 1500 or better. To some, on this site, you're "average". Because being "average" is the best position to be in (or being 1100 ). Ratings aren't an true measure of chess ability. You are. Don't ever make the mistake of judging yourself by others. Playing's the thing. (Not for ratings)

When i first started on this site. I wanted to be the best 1200 player. As time passed, i was bumped up to 1400 (online). Just kept improving (and losing) but never thought about my rating til i reached 1700. I believe if i stay at that rating, i am cool because there are alot of players at that level that are better than i am. I'm currently 1800+ (online) but i'm no better than i am than i was at 1200. The difference being in my experience, that's it. For me, i'll probably plateau at this rating because it:s more of an hobby and i'm comfortable with my play (right now).

But since chess is a competition, that's rather unavoidable, isn't it? lol

I judge the opinions that I read here by the ratings of the posters. If they have high ratings, I know they are oxygen deprived and cannot be expected to make sense.

Hm. I think what's unavoidable is being judged by others (in terms of rating). Even in competition, you don't mean to say just because you're 100pts below your opponent you'd automatically sell yourself short? That.."lol"..you couldn't possibly win? Ratings can't measure the Heart, Will, and commitment one has.