I'll repeat:
200 points higher than your best rating is a good rating, unless you're already +2800.
What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?
Sort:
ameraljic wrote:
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
What I wrote 4 yrs ago. I stopped playing chess somewhere around then and picked it up 2 months ago again - Now I’m roughly 1900!
so apparently now I’m a very good player
Jun 29, 2018
0
#304
Hi ameraljic - I am an above average player, my rating is generally between 1400 and 1500.
Good luck in all your games...
Jun 29, 2018
0
#305
It's pretty interesting that majority of people posting on this thread consider good to be around the rating that they're at. If we consider chess as a board game that almost everyone on this planet know the rules to (and almost nothing else about it), being a 1000+ rating would probably be enough to never lose to anyone who doesn't actively play. Then again on chess sites 1000 rating is pretty low. With around 1400-1600 you're already on the 90th percentile on most game modes. So I guess being in the top 10 percent of players could be considered good in general.
Of course 1400-1600s are patzers to 1800s, just like 1800s are to 2000s. There are always players stronger than you (unless you're Carlsen) and "good" as a measure is relative. But since the question was on this site, I think 2000+ is a good rating. If we consider your ability to play one board game of many, being 1000+ is good enough for many to be considered "good at playing chess".
here is my answer:
under 1200 novice
1200-1500 : beginner player
1500-1800 : good player
1800-2200 : expert player
2200-2500 : master player
above 2500: world champion
I am 1100, and i may never play again.
Sometimes I play well, but it is not yet rote.
It is grasp of the obvious.
This is a good dose of humility. I am proud to get my score over 1000. Guess I need to raise my standards. None of my friends can beat me but that's probably because they aren't chess players. Need to step it up!
Dec 25, 2018
0
#311
With my last two rated games (in September and October) I've finally reached a decent rating.
Maybe I should retire...
clown_professionalz skrev:
here is my answer:
under 1200 novice
1200-1500 : beginner player
1500-1800 : good player
1800-2200 : expert player
2200-2500 : master player
above 2500: world champion
I think that is rough. If you are at 1500 on this site, then you are at around the 85% percentile or something like that. And that is among people actually registrered at this site, not including the vast amounts of the general public who have played chess a few times here and there. I am currently hovering around 1400 here, which is at the 80% percentile of users here. Wouldn't it be considered "good" to be amongst the best 20% of registrered users? While I would appear to be a pretty bad player to someone rated 1800, I would probably easily beat 99/100 of the general population.
Dec 25, 2018
0
#313
TheRealThreat wrote:
What is consider a good rating on the site. Well, I think if you are rated above 1800 then you are a good chess player. If you are rated 1500-1799 then you are average. What do you think?
That's about right in terms of competitive playing. A 1200 rating OTB is traditionally the level at which a player is considered to have mastered the basic skills. That's probably about the same here.
Dec 25, 2018
0
#314
I think if somebody is rated 1300 here he can be considered average. Most people here will perceive as “good” the 2000- players.
Apr 5, 2019
0
#315
Problem with answers on this site is that people that answer are generally chess devotees, so the answers are skewed way too high. If you are asking this question, you are probably a beginning player trying to understand where you fit in. If you are 1500+ you know exactly how good/bad you are. Don't be a troll. So you have to make a distinction between competitive players and casual players. The average on this site is around 1180. (For chess.com - as of 4/5/2019 - Players 780,492 - Avg Rating: 1181.55 - Avg Glicko RD 112.09. ) I would say in the USA, where most people are not chess players, the average beginner is 800-1150. Intermediate players (typically have played a good amount but never studied the game) are 1150-1400. At 1400, you will beat almost any casual adult player. Advanced and good tournament players 1400-1700. 1700+ is really, really good and takes significant dedication. 2000+ is elite. Most master players and above will tell you that it takes thousands of hours of study and play to reach 2000+. There are probably less than 2500 players in the USA with that rating in all age groups).
May 31, 2019
0
#316
TonightOnly wrote:
I know I would at least call myself good relative to the general population. But this is unfair, seeing as many don't even know the rules of the game, and I, on the other hand, have spent years of my life achieving this rating.
Yeah, I mean even 1000s and possibly 600-800s on this site could still easily beat most people they encounter, but are considered beginners or lower by official ranking
Chess.com ratings go close to fide elo ratings,if u are 1800 here ur elo is most likely 1600-1800,so over 1900 is universally considered expert and that makes me a patzer
ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY AS LONG AS IT'S ON PAGE ONE AND THEY SPELL YOUR NAME RIGHT.
In agreement with the first post(OP) made a decade ago.
1800-2000 is good.