What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?

Sort:
najdorf96

(The air where i'm at is just fine, thankyouveddymuch, it's just the alcohol that i drink that makes me "quirky" sometimes. Heh)

nickchamp
Ziryab wrote:
stealth_attack wrote:

For many top level chess people (1800+) a large percentage of their moves are simply "autopilot" because they've used them before with much success. Not to mention, they've played so many times and found what works in various attacks, defending certain positions etc.

Autopilot is a strange and inaccurate metaphor for pattern recognition.

Autopiolwt is good wording

GambitAsylum

By definition: "Good" would mean either better then bad or better then others. Once you define that your answer can be answered properly. If you're a 1200 you would annihilate any random person of the street, all day! But 1200 on here and you're likely to be full rookie (not bad, never bad in chess - just improving ;). So my answer is a 1200 here is good to someone that isn't an active chess player, but I'd say 1600 on here and you're getting good. I'm only 1400-1500 but I still get beaten by "rookies" sometimes lol. Just love it, it comes easy when you do...

AndyClifton
najdorf96 wrote:

Ratings can't measure the Heart, Will, and commitment one has.

lol

RogerAxx

I have 1000 and I make mistake all the time. Am I  stupid ..

TheRealThreat

Making mistakes has nothing to do with low intelligence. Mistakes show that there is room for growth. You are not STUPID for making mistakes.

ajttja

1 rating point above mine, and it will always be 1 rating point above mine Cry

Ziggyblitz

200 points below my current rating, whatever it might be.

royalbishop
matzleeach wrote:

Making mistakes has nothing to do with low intelligence. Mistakes show that there is room for growth. You are not STUPID for making mistakes.

Thanks! I make a mistake every day and everyday my daddy call me stupid. Well it is not so bad he used to call me moron, idiot, big dummy. Oh sorry i was watching Sanford and Son where Sanford call people stupid.  lol

TheRealThreat

Most of us grew up thinking that mistakes are bad and should be avoided at all cost. We tend to correlate mistakes with low intelligence: The more mistakes you make, the dumber you are. In the creative mind, however, mistakes were opportunities to learn something new. There a bit of magic hidden in every mistake. That magic is called learning.

beardogjones
matzleeach wrote:

Most of us grew up thinking that mistakes are bad and should be avoided at all cost. We tend to correlate mistakes with low intelligence: The more mistakes you make, the dumber you are. In the creative mind, however, mistakes were opportunities to learn something new. There a bit of magic hidden in every mistake. That magic is called learning.

Chess ratings are for people that like to live in the past - and approximately at that.

SmyslovFan
beardogjones wrote:
Chess ratings are for people that like to live in the past - and approximately at that.

No, chess ratings are for people who play chess. I see that you have no games listed at the time of this writing even though you have been on the site for 4 years.

RonaldJosephCote

               Yeah, what the hell is up with that. 0 games in 4 yrs??

RonaldJosephCote

         What is considered a good rating here??   Well I haven't been banned THIS WEEK!   Moving on----boots and pants, and boots and pants.

SmyslovFan

Thayu, the "harshness" is on point in this case because he is dismissing a rating system that he does not participate in. Read what he wrote. 

I wasn't criticizing BDG's use of the site. I was criticizing his comment about the worth of ratings.

But as for being a master in disguise, I doubt a master would spend +250 hours on tactics training here and score only 1996 as his highest. 

iMacChess

What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?

Anything above my rating... :(

ameraljic

To me, a player with a rating of about 1700-1800 is good. I hover somewhere between 1500-1600 constantly and wouldn't call myself a good player, really

Plywood64

depends on you experience and ambition - i allways think you should aim for 100 higher wherever you are but i play for the pleasure so good games are more important

yureesystem
  • 6 years ago · Quote · #12

    Ziryab

    Loomis wrote:

    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.


     There's an insight that we can remember.

     

    BTW, I'm not any good at chess. 


     Ziryab, you have a sense of humor, strong player like you, we played them in the third round at my chess club, every expert in the first and second round we played a 1600 to 1700 player.

 If any player can reach otb expert ( 2000-2100 USCF or FIDE), he or she is a good player. That is the lowest title before master and better than A class (1800-1999 USCF). I believe most players would like to become master but it is too much work for most players.

varelse1

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.