What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?

Is there perhaps just a tincy little bit of intellectual snobbery creeping into all this rating business, who cares so long as we are having fun :-)

7 years of zhe thread. Wow!

2800 or bust

Well, chess is a snobbish game. Yes, it's a game that anyone can play, but it's an intellectual version of arm-wrestling. Ratings are just the way of measuring how many chumps you've beaten (or lost to). The bigger the rating the more intellectual brawn you have. So yeah, it's snobbish. But that's what competitive chess is about, competition.

Well I am competitive, not that it's getting me as many wins as I would like, just between you and me though I would love to have a high rating then maybe people would think I was intellingent too ;) Perhapse I am a closet intellectual snob after all !!!

Ellie, you can improve your game greatly ... simply decide that one of your next books will be a book on chess, and study.  What worked for me was a book called something like "the 64 most instructive games of chess."  with each one teaching a particular strategy.  You'll be surprised at how "intellectual" you will feel after a few victories.  Come to think of it, I should follow my own advice!!!

What's a good rating?  The best theory on here:  150 higher than you are now!  

Hunter, you mean 62 games?

http://www.amazon.com/Most-Instructive-Games-Chess-Played/dp/0486273024

Excellent recommendation! 

A good player is somebody that can still manage to shine and win games repeatedly against players of a similar rating ... so even 900 that never loses to 900s is a good player.

@Natural_Pawn_killer9:

A 900 player who never loses to 900s is unlikely to stay 900 for long...

0-<1200  Beginner chess player: Has to study tactics to improve

1200-<1500 Intermediate chess player: Good tactician but has to improve his positional skills furtherer

1500-<1800 Good chess player: Both tactically as positionally skilled, but not too special  

1800-<2000 Great chess player Amazing tactical and positional skills, is at the point of becoming expert

2000-<2200 Expert chess player  Mastered both tactics and strategy and are usually coaching beginner/intermediate chess players

2200-<2300 NM/National master

2300-<2400 FM/Fide master

2400-<2500 IM/International master

2500+  Gm/Grandmaster

says the person who, as far as ratings go, is a chess lightweight.

A good rating is probably unique to each person. When your winning about half the time and losing about half of the time , as you hopefully push yourself to improve your skills!

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.

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.