What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?

this is weird... in the most recent posts i saw this topic posted and the title sounded intresting so i clicked on it thinkin i would be the first person to post as it said 'two seconds ago'...

my post is now on page 2... anyway (sorry i hav fogotten ur name), the person with a tiger for his picture is way too modest!! USCF rating of just under 2000 is brilliant!! my rating on this sight is 2996 but rising fast!!

PS. a rapid play grade is not the same as a USCF rating is it?

It's my goal to stay between 1250 and 1400...  I'm sitting on 1291 now

"It's my goal to stay between 1250 and 1400...  I'm sitting on 1291 now"

Make sure to lose a game on purpose when you get to 1420 so that you properly meet your goal.

 yaa... right

I think that politeness and and how one plays is more important than rating.if one enjoys playing what does it matter if ones rating is 1600 or 2600?

i like looking at other players games when it is not my turn.i think the biggest 

difference between a 1600 and a 2000 is tactics and endgame play.

i personally think anyone over about 1600 is good but i think that has alot to do wi

where my level of play is because players over 1600 tend to be more of a challenge. 

 texi wrote:

yesterday my rating was 1802 whilst today it is 1746! So not sure if I am not as good today as I was yesterday!

rating is a good idea for the long run, to see how better tou were on chess,

as of now my goal is to get over 2000

I like your sentiment. It is only when we believe ourselves in need of improvement that we strive for it. If you become content with your abilities, you become complacent and never improve. It seems a bit counter-intuitive, but the only way to become better is to believe you're awful.

As Socrates once said, "The only thing I know is that I don't know anything." (Loosely translated, of course)

well, it is not all that simple.., there are many good chess players who aren't even IMs and still have the skills of GMs, for ex Scottland's 2006 champion was not a titled player only rated a little above 2300, he became scottland champion above several GMs and IMs, there have been and still will be many similar situations in the chess world where none titled players, FMs, IMs win tournaments against higher rated players and GMs, the fact is that the chess world needs ratings systems in an intent to make an eval on how strong a chess player might be, but in reality ratings systems, or chess titles are not the last word when it comes to really knowing for sure about a chess players's extrength, for example if you went to Myanmar Asia and played a tournament against the 2400 rated players there, chances are you will beat many of them without much difficulty and gain lots of rating points to maybe get a rating higher than many European FMs's or IMs's, well good for you....., you can do the same by going to some central and south American countries and beating on masters there, you can even do the same here in the states when it comes to your USCF ratings, for example upstate NY is full of little towns where local USCF rated tournaments are organized, the players are not that strong yet some of them have high ratings, meaning that once you beat them your USCF rating will sky rocket, the same thing happens in many far away small european towns where players beat each other all the time and only a few of them have master level skills (yet many of them do hold high ratings even hight FIDE ratings), now try to go and gain easy ratings points in a place where even the 2000 rated players and none rated players play like real FMs and IMs and the situation gets a little tough..

here in chess.com there are some ways or methods you can use to get an idea of how good a player could really be, for example looking and his average opponents, Glicko RD, win and lose percentages (cheaters apart) etc, but still when it comes to knowing real playing extrength those methods would not be the last word either  

You will not get a more honest and accurate response than this. I'm maybe MAYBE a 1600 USCF if I were focused. And even though that is better than 99.5% of the human race I still say "I'm okay" or "I wish I knew more about the game"

The main problem with on line chess ratings is that you can play anyone who has a lower rating than you. This would not happen in an OTB tourny. In the USA you have the class system so a class A player would not be allowed to play, say, a class C player.  But a class C player could play a class B player, thereby going UP in the ratings. We have a similar thing in the UK.

 So the on line rating goes up out of proportion. My current rating is 1902 but there is no way I'm that good. That would be around 160 in the english system, man I would get battered if I played them!

For myself the question of what rating defines a good chess player is relative, like Loomis says, but if I had to make a decision, I would say titled players are good.

Red

What would be a really cool idea to improve this site is make it so that when you challange an opponent you can only challenge those within you class. I'm not sure how much re-programming this would take but if it could be done we would all get a much better account of our real rating.

If a lower rated player wanted to challange someone who was not in their class for teaching purposes you could do an unrated game. That way no one gets an over infalted or under infalted rating and the lower rated player gets the benifit of learning something.

What do you all think?

Red

Well, what about banded tournaments (i.e. tournaments restricted to certain rating ranges)? Also, the rating system would perhaps converge to something more reliable a bit faster if starting rating could be flexible (i.e. if documented stronger players could start on a higher rating). It might be a turn-off for a happy patzer as yours truly to be badly ripped apart by a "1200" player straight out of the starting block.

farbror wrote

"Well, what about banded tournaments (i.e. tournaments restricted to certain rating ranges)? "

In principal it sounds like a good idea, but how would you get all members to play in tournys if they choose not too?

Red