Better than me would get you close.

I peaked at #45 on the list. The percentile just said "100%".
Need double-precision variables!
Better than me would get you close.

I peaked at #45 on the list. The percentile just said "100%".
Need double-precision variables!
EntireIy subjective, but I would say that if you're better than 90% then this should be considered "good'
50-90% "reasonable"
20-50% "beginners"
Less than 20% "muppets"
2500 is quite good... The rating should be: under 1200: beginner 1200-1600 =advanced beginner 1600-2000 good tournament player 2000-2200 internationally ranked. 2200-2300 Us life master. 2300-2400 International master. 2400-2500 grand master. 2500-2600 strong grandmaster. 2700... your near world master. 2800: your Kasparov. (This rating was argued forth by Michel j. Gerb Ramond Keene in "samurai chess - mastering strategic thinking through the martial art of the mind")
ahh, stupidity at its finest. boi 1200 and below is like 92% of people on this website. 92% of people aren't "beginner". bruh.
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?
Bro got 13 dislikes when his opinion isn't even that far off the spectrum lol. Bunch of angry kids that are like "GWRRRR I IS NOT BAD AT CHESS"
average on this site is literally about 750. not 1500. 1500 is literally around top 4%. that's not average.
If you're rated 1500 then you're comfortably in the top 10% or even 5% of active chess players. That's well above average. Anyone who says otherwise is either completely unaware of how average people play or is just trying to big themselves up.
my rating is terrible, almost 700 and I wanted to go up, but I think it's not just about the skill, you need to much time too
Any rating where you enjoy the game and learning something every time... at least for me.