I think I'm a good player and then I miss a free rook in a position I analyzed before it was on the board, analyzed for several hours or on and off all day (maybe only for a few minutes total, but so often that it seemed like many hours). Then, I must wonder whether I'm just a hack with a large library of chess books (more than 300) and some knowledge garnered from reading them.
What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?
Sort:
AlCzervik wrote:
Caesar49bc wrote:
I'd say you need to be 2000+ as the bottom to be a decent player. I've seen games on here between 1500 and 1699 rayed players that would ba laughabe for a USCF player above 1200.
Part of the issue is there are quite a few players that will keep bumping up thier rating by just playing weaker players.
There is little chance of doing that all the way to 2000. I'm undecided about the 1700 to 1999 crowd, but those players do have know some decent knowlege to stay in that range. Over 2000 and your going to know some chess theory and apply it against similar rated players, not to mention a good amount tactical and pattern knowlege.
i do have know that you are quite arrogant about your description of rayed players here.
i would agree that players over 2000 have some knowlege.
to your point about being undecided about the 1700-1999 players, i couldn't agree more. as you wrote about pattern knowledge, a player at 1999 simply cannot compete with one at 2001!
Even a beginner understands chess isn't about absolutes.
But to put it in more technical terms for your highness, players about 2000 and above are at a level where you could make a ratings distribution graph and come out with a a relatively accurate normal distribution to compared to say a USCF rating. Perhaps a USCF = chess.com + 200.
1699 and below, there is zero chance of finding a normal distribution for ratings when compared to another rating system.
Between 1700 and 1999, the distribution graph should be somewhere in between a quantifiable distribution graph, and one that useless to use to create a ratings comparison formula.
nah, you're just high.
Caesar49bc wrote:
Even a beginner understands chess isn't about absolutes.
But to put it in more technical terms for your highness, players about 2000 and above are at a level where you could make a ratings distribution graph and come out with a a relatively accurate normal distribution to compared to say a USCF rating. Perhaps a USCF = chess.com + 200.
1699 and below, there is zero chance of finding a normal distribution for ratings when compared to another rating system.
Between 1700 and 1999, the distribution graph should be somewhere in between a quantifiable distribution graph, and one that useless to use to create a ratings comparison formula.
i prefer pie charts to graphs.
on the plus side, you completed a post with no misspellings.
Lol
🤓
With a certain degree of cheating an online rating can never be measured accurately. Play, enjoy and learn the game here. Don't worry about ratings. If you believe you have a gift get with a good instructor and he will steer you into competitive in person matches where your rating will be accurately measured.
Dec 19, 2019
0
#328
Today’s edition of Cryptic Quotes comes from the letters g and p. And is funded by ghosts of Andy Cliftons past.
Well, as I literally went my way into my solid actual rating, like I started with 1500 when I first joined lichess and lost my way into minimum rating as 800, and after a long grind, I can stay on a solid 1300+. So Its not just about the number, as if Ive started a new account level 1500, Iam pretty sure I could hang on in there and even climb. So I like to say I am a very solid 1300+ player that is a good chess player, knowing theories like Sicilian defense and such. If you are familiar with some known open ups, you are at least on your way to be a good player.
When I say a good player, is someone who is not going to do stupid moves or look dumb, but will get in traps by more skillfully players that played 1000x matches more than you and know what is going on.
Feb 16, 2020
0
#330
PlaysFairly wrote:
In any competitive game or sport if you aren't highly competitive with the best of your time you're nobody.
Preserving a message destined for disappearance.
it's not worth preserving.
Hi All. I am just trying to help. I am just trying to help. Hi All.I see people want to reach 1800 ratings, but it only achieve able with hard work and being discipline as you have to spent time on a regular basis. Let me tell you a fact that, even i was 1200 here in chessdotcom and have reached 1900+ in 4 years because I was not regularly playing.I used to play only 3 months in a whole year which is not good enough.I didn't even try to think like 1500, 1700, 1900 mind sets in the game. Just be regular and try to play higher rated opponents so that you will come to know your weakness in your game. I stream chess games, puzzles ,puzzles battle for 1200-1800 rated players on regular basics and play with all people who wanted to feel how 1800 rated player game taste like.You can add me as friend and send challenges on chess.com. (Username you know already).You can catch me on www.twitch.com/corporatechessguy for livestream. I hope you all get a chance to play with 1800 Player like me, as other high rated players don't except challenges from lower rated player to be honest. Hoping to receive more friend request on chessdotcom and followers on twitch. Most important, you are always welcome to try out your tournament practise with me. Let's play together!
If you have a rating north of 1900, then your playing really good.
1800+ is good for correspondence. Anything below is bad or average (1700-99 is average)
Ratings shmatings. One cannot get an accurate rating in a den full of cheats.
Have yu ever wanted to join a club that has 180+ members and really good then plz join https://www.chess.com/club/lair-of-the-lions/join
I'd say you need to be 2000+ as the bottom to be a decent player. I've seen games on here between 1500 and 1699 rayed players that would ba laughabe for a USCF player above 1200.
Part of the issue is there are quite a few players that will keep bumping up thier rating by just playing weaker players.
There is little chance of doing that all the way to 2000. I'm undecided about the 1700 to 1999 crowd, but those players do have know some decent knowlege to stay in that range. Over 2000 and your going to know some chess theory and apply it against similar rated players, not to mention a good amount tactical and pattern knowlege.
i do have know that you are quite arrogant about your description of rayed players here.
i would agree that players over 2000 have some knowlege.
to your point about being undecided about the 1700-1999 players, i couldn't agree more. as you wrote about pattern knowledge, a player at 1999 simply cannot compete with one at 2001!