What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?
Sort:
It is relative i must say. But i think anyone 1700+ would be classed good on this site at least mostly because it thins out about that level thats my view anyway....
matzleeach 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?
I will go out on a limb and say a rating here of 1800 or better is "good".
It's all relative. Amongest my family, (cousins and even close friends), I'm 'the master'. But then I started playing in a club in Lansing, MI about 10-15 years ago and WOW, did I become humble. I was a turd playing chess up there. This is worth debating, but I did find out that the gap between good and bad is closer in speed games. In other words, a lesser rated player has a better chance of beating a higher rated player if it's a 5 or 10 minute game.
The question is about chess.com and what would constitute a "good rating" here , and 1800 IS good relative to the other ratings here, well over average here.
Since everyone starts at 1200 then I think the rating graph in the link above is abit misleading, but a rating >1800 is definately good.
I don't buy into the 2600 players being "bad" compared to 2700 players, the total number of players >2600 as a percentage is tiny of the total population of players. Try beating a "bad" 2200.....
Its interesting that I am not the only one having trouble with spare75's lack of decency and sportsmanship.........any others out there?! I think right now he is clearly lost in more than a dozen of his current games and doing the same thing mentioned above.
i think there is different levels of chess. Just like any other sport or game. Someone above said he has over a 2000 rating but still thinks his chess is "rubbish". Well yeah rubbish on a master level but great chess on a casual level.
Just like you might call someone a great golfer who always shoots in the 70 or 80's range on the weekend. But on a pro level he is not good at all.
Now I am a horrid chess player with a 1200 rating. I suck even on a casual level. But maybe, just maybe I am OK on a super beginner level. :)
In USCF definition, 2200+ is Master and 2000+ is Expert. Now, to be Expert one must be better than just good. So we look to the class below. 1800+ is Class A. Therefore Class A must be good. That is how I have always looked at it. I think the ratings on this site are fairly analagous--although I think my rating may be running a little high.
Reb wrote: The question is about chess.com and what would constitute a "good rating" here , and 1800 IS good relative to the other ratings here, well over average here.
That is so true! There are many players here never reach a 1800 rating. Those who has find that it is challenging to stay above 1800.
it is really hard for me to raise my 1500 here. When I played against computer, a 1300 rated player keeps beat me. Does it mean my actual rating is much lower than 1500 according to the computerized chess?
Huh? 1300 good? Dude I suck at chess, don't study and I'm already at like 1500 with two games, and winning two games against 1500+ people. I don't think until maybe 1700 that people are actually good on this site atleast.
I think an ordinary chessplayer like me will be happy with a rating hovering around 2000 because this may let me play against national masters sometimes, an international master or a grandmaster when lucky. In the end it is not that rating that is important to me it is the love of the the game and being able to play anytime and anywhere. chess.com is a good venue for this privilege.
Mar 14, 2008
0
#53
Maybe what we should try to do is to get better at chess, and better at enjoying chess. I look to improve.I actually have thought that 1400 is pretty good and 1600 is better than average and 1800 is really good and anything above 2000 is mindblowing.Thats just perception though.I think I will allways think the next level or the level after that is where good is, however, if we could rate ourselves on enjoyment , how would we rate?
I'm currently over 1800 here, but don't fancy myself a good player. I'm crap compared to some of the guys at the club I attend. I've never played in a rated game or tournament, nor am I a member of USCF, so I have no real reference. I think that good players are around 2000 here.
I think we all agree good is relative. And most I think will agree that we can get better. So as my Martial Arts instructor would say: Only compare yourself to yourself and work as hard as you can. That's why I think ratings are inferior to belts in Martial Arts, or lifetime acheivement awards like Life Master in Contract Bridge.
Even if you play chess and get a certain rating, I think it would be appropriate to have an erosion/depreciation factor added to it. For example: You play 100 games in a year and attain a rating of say 2000. If you do not play for say 6 months then your rating should depreciate to something like half or 1000. That takes into account you have only played for a short period of time. If you play for 20 years, then you get a lifetime meritorious acheivement type award and you don't depreciate any more.
This would reward those that hang around and support the hobby and encourage someone to stick around.
RE fotoman: Except when Martial Arts schools churn out blackbelts in two years to below average students.
I happy with my rating which is just under 1300. I would like to get it higher but I am the sort of player that could lose a few together and my rating drops. But chess is great. It makes you think abit, which at my age is good.
Nachos wrote: RE fotoman: Except when Martial Arts schools churn out blackbelts in two years to below average students.
No such thing as a Below Average Black Belt, any more than a below average chess master.
Three years is pretty normal for an adult martial artist. But that assumes you go to at least 2-3 classes every week for 3 years. That's about 200 classes. Endure all the humiliation, broken toes, bruised shins, busted knuckles, and groin kicks by errant kicks and punches. Get your ass kicked by a girl 1/2 size a few times. Pass all the prior belt tests and be able to do all the forms to the teacher's specifications. Do all the physical conditioning, training and stretching outside class. Considering what is required, it almost akin to getting a college education. As for the true athletes that attain 2nd and higher degrees, they invest even more time and effort.
Fotoman wrote: Nachos wrote: RE fotoman: Except when Martial Arts schools churn out blackbelts in two years to below average students.
No such thing as a Below Average Black Belt, any more than a below average chess master.
Three years is pretty normal for an adult martial artist. But that assumes you go to at least 2-3 classes every week for 3 years. That's about 200 classes. Endure all the humiliation, broken toes, bruised shins, busted knuckles, and groin kicks by errant kicks and punches. Get your ass kicked by a girl 1/2 size a few times. Pass all the prior belt tests and be able to do all the forms to the teacher's specifications. Do all the physical conditioning, training and stretching outside class. Considering what is required, it almost akin to getting a college education. As for the true athletes that attain 2nd and higher degrees, they invest even more time and effort.
Yes there is unfortunatly i should know i achieved it the black belt that is, and i have tried other styles and seen different standards i have seen blackbelts who achieved it in 2yrs and they are not more then brown belts to me not yet ready and there are few exceptions to that.. But money plays a role too in martials arts it took me almost 4 years just to get first. But i would say average would be about 3.5yrs anything less then 3yrs hardly gives u enough experience to be any good. Good moves dont make good fighters. Same with chess, clever tricks and smart openings only go so far. You need to use what u got wisely and gain more then tricks to be good at this game or anything else like it such as martial arts....
