FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
@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.
so would you be considered hopeless if you were a 700?
Live rating - 600 = real OTB rating.
So you'd be a 100 rated player. That's not bad if you just learned chess though.
(just kidding - you're still a total beginner though, but everyone starts somewhere)
Against titled players, as far as I can remember, I'm 1-1 against FM NoWuss2 in 3+2 blitz 960, 3-3 against NM Samuraichessman in 1+0 bullet, and 1-0 against Falzehope in 1+0 bullet.
I've also played against titled players in variants that aren't 960 (which is still real chess), but don't remember.
...I'm definitely 200 points better than my blitz rating.in fact, with effort I brought up my blitz to my uscf a little while ago....
so in 700 blitz; your likely a 700 player , maybe ±200.
lol I added the "just kidding" because I didn't want to mislead someone who might actually take it seriously. The correlation is very weak at best.
In agreement with the first post(OP) made a decade ago.
1800-2000 is good.
200 points higher than your best rating is a good rating, unless you're already +2800.