90% approximately = 400 above average blitz
very convenient coincidence.
Why would you think that is coincidence? It comes out of the math in the Glicko rating system.
I understand that Glicko is an improvement on Elo, but essentially similar. Elo gives a player rated 200 above an opponent 75% win odds. Take the inverse and double it to get 15/16 chance of winning at +400.
Since the nominal average player starts at 1200, 1600 should be the 94th percentile.
I'm excited that I just broke 400. Hahahahaha.
on one hand though, iowa, you have been trying since late december.
thats not really a long time.
I find it curious that you started with longer rapid games then went to fast chess like blitz/lightening. I don't think that helps. just saying
This, although since I'm over 2150 on this site, I can modify that slightly to say that my chess is basically rubbish.
1842 blitz is low for me, I want to be 1900+
I struggle to be over 1900, and to achieve over 2000 again as I did for a single game last February would be fabulous! It's still rubbish, though.
I think Im good enough at flagging and my last rated games were all crap by my opponents, they got lucky I mousesliped with my mouse, so I guess I should be at 1900+ range, maybe 1940~ to be kind of exact.
Really tho, I dont care about monopoly money lol.
A couple of days ago I threw away a clear advantage against a NM, but then won on time. See http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2017/01/blowing-ending.html
I have played blitz against a decent number of NMs and a couple of CMs. Also one low rated FM who was 1800. I have beaten a few of them but I am always unsure of what I should be doing. Should I play crazy like I normally do or should I try to play more accurate moves? Even if they are not as good as they should be at blitz, they are still titled so their knowledge about any chess position should far surpass mine.
I have never played against titled players on blitz only against a weird FM which played unrated, went for a draw on move 22 and blocked me, LOL.
You should play more. I run into NMs every week or two and seem to win about once a month (at least in the past year). Many of those wins, however, are on time in lost positions. I outplayed one NM several months ago and was then blocked by him. He eventually removed the block and we're now friends. He hasn't asked for the rematch, yet.
everybody is like 2000 is rubbish.
I guess that makes me pretty freakn low- spacially in the blitz.
"hello, my favorite hobby is chess. I'm on chess.com incessantly- constantly attending tournaments and talking to a chess coach.
but I am beyond and hopelessly awful and terrible at it. even people that beat me drunk and half awake- are rubbish.
please give me a beer, a gun or a pychiatrist"
Honestly I think everyone starts out thinking they're really good at chess... and the better they get the more they realize they actually suck. At least that's the case for me, the more I learn, the more I realize the things I miss and how bad my level of play really is.
1700-2200 is respectable chess rating for sure.. but if we're talking about good chess... they play terribly.
@SWED420BLAZEIT - Totally agree. The more I progress with the game the more I realize how badly I play and how amazingly hard chess truly is. Still for me I like the challenge of the thing so as long as I keep making incremental improvements I find it engaging and rewarding.
Which brings me to the title of the thread: It's like asking how long a piece of string should be. Only the relative rating of the opponents matters. I think low rated players blundering their way to a win is as good a game as any - for the people involved that is.