What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?

Sort:
Avatar of IGP1200

Good, shmood. I'm just in awe of players who don't hang their Queen.

Avatar of dude0812
developingdave wrote:

I think most people will answer like this: Whatever rating doesn't stand a chance against me personally is bad, just below my current rating is starting to be good, just above my current rating is good to quite good. 2000-ish players see it differently - they tend to think of where someone is at on the journey to where they are at, so 1200 is still a beginner from the point of view of one of the lucky few that ever reach 2000. But they are also comparing everyone else to where they currently stand, just adding a time dimension, if you will. If you want to be objective about it, go to your stats page, and pay attention to your percentile ranking, and the number of players. The larger the number of players (like rapid) the more representative a sample you have of all players across the site, the smaller the number of players (like bullet), the less representative it is (because not everybody can handle bullet time controls, it doesn't get as many players).
Once you know your percentile, ask yourself, if this wasn't chess, what would I consider "good"? It is a relative term after all. If you think of an above average runner as "good", then if your rapid percentile is over 50%, consider yourself "good". If you would only think of the top 10% of runners as "good" then, you need to be over the 90th percentile. And you need to lighten up. But big picture wise, I say just enjoy the journey. Judge yourself by your progress more than your rating. So long as you are improving, you are on your way.

People who play a couple of games of chess get a rating on this website. It doesn't make sense to me to look at percentages here, comparing yourself to people who play chess more or less regurarily makes much more sense to me. I think 1300 rapid, 1000 blitz is around when people start to make horrible blunders a lot less often, when they can spot basic tactics more or less consistently and when they understand the basics of chess openings and chess principles. 
Here is my ranking of the players (I assume that we are talking about rapid rating on this website):
I would say that below 850 you are a beginner.
850-1299 you are an advanced beginner
1300-1499 lower intermediate
1500-1799 intermediate
1800-2199 upper intermediate
2200+ advanced
somewhere around 2300-2400 good at chess.
For the record, as of the moment of writing this comment I am rated 2016 rapid, 1809 blitz on this website.

Avatar of SmyslovFan

Anish Giri recently said that when he was 2100, he “was already quite good”.

Avatar of whiteknight1968

I would have to disagree, because 1300 would put you in the top 10%, which seems to be better than "lower intermediate".

How about - 1500+ Strong player

1200 - 1500 Competent

900 - 1200 Novice

600 - 900 Beginner

Under 600 Muppet

This would be for rapid as faster stuff isn't really chess.

Avatar of Ziryab
whiteknight1968 wrote:

I would have to disagree, because 1300 would put you in the top 10%, which seems to be better than "lower intermediate".

How about - 1500+ Strong player

1200 - 1500 Competent

900 - 1200 Novice

600 - 900 Beginner

Under 600 Muppet

This would be for rapid as faster stuff isn't really chess.

On this site, lower intermediate are at the 95th percentile.

Avatar of developingdave

@dude0812 - I may be wrong, but I do believe that the percentile ratings only include players who have played a rated game under that time control w/in the last 90 days. I've seen friends go inactive for a while, and their percentile disappears to an "N/A". I've also got lots of people on my friends list that have been playing for 5+ years, have 5K-20K games on the site, are now improving rating wise at maybe 10-20 points a year if at all... And yet according to your ranges, they are "beginners". From my own experience, when I was around the range you say people are just able to spot basic tactics and have just started to learn opening principles, I had read books by Pandolfini, Silman, Chernev, Nimzo, I could have named the opening being played though not the variation, I could and did set up a windmill or smothered mate in a live game, solve about 80% of Polgars 5334 mate in 2s given enough time and 50% immediately. I'm not saying what you have said is untrue, just that it is based on your experience. It is true for players who will one day reach the 2000s - you folks could reach 1000 without studying opening principles, and the rest of us salute you for it. But if you are somebody who is going to max out at 1700, 1500, etc, then you didn't break 1000 during the beginning phase of chess life.

Avatar of RapidKnightEthan
OhHayHay wrote:

Is 271 decent for someone who has been playing chess for 4 days

at least its not 100 elo

Avatar of pdecirce

I think we tend to overvalue ratings in general. What matters is having fun and learning from our mistakes and celebrating our victories.

I think the best point of the rating system is that chess.com positions our challengers in a close range to our skill level, which is probably the best thing for improving and having fair games.

Just enjoy the game -- this time in history is amazing! Even 50 years ago, I couldn't play someone across the world instantly. So it's a great time for the game.

Avatar of GMLombardo

everybody thinks they are bad when compared to an opponent they lost to or to themself

Avatar of chickenxray
over 1200
Avatar of Chuck639

I am not sure what to think at the moment because of the increased popularity.

To give you an idea, 800 is now average. 1200 puts you around the top 10% and 1600 rapid puts you within top 2% of this site.

I doubt the numbers are accurate but let’s assume it is true, I should be anticipating a rush of new up and comers to cherry pick from?

Avatar of Ziryab
Chuck639 wrote:

I am not sure what to think at the moment because of the increased popularity.

To give you an idea, 800 is now average. 1200 puts you around the top 10% and 1600 rapid puts you within top 2% of this site.

I doubt the numbers are accurate but let’s assume it is true, I should be anticipating a rush of new up and comers to cherry pick from?

Top 10% on a children's playground does not make you an Olympic athlete.

Avatar of HawksleyS
Im 600-700
Avatar of whiteknight1968

I used to really struggle to get into the top 15% for rapid, now I am in the top 5%. This is not because I have got a lot better, its because there are now over 21 million players in the rapid pool, and I guess the majority of them are beginners.

"Good" is very subjective, if you enjoy playing who cares what rating you have.

Avatar of Ziryab
whiteknight1968 wrote:

I used to really struggle to get into the top 15% for rapid, now I am in the top 5%. This is not because I have got a lot better, its because there are now over 21 million players in the rapid pool, and I guess the majority of them are beginners.

"Good" is very subjective, if you enjoy playing who cares what rating you have.

This is true. Size of the pool matters and legions of beginners will affect your percentile ranking. In comparison to my top 1/2 of 1% in rapid on this site, my USCF rating only has me at 93. Even this national pool is inundated with weak players. In my state, where most youth events are rated through a regional system rather than USCF, my percentile is barely 88. That lower percentile score is a much better reflection of where I stand among those who care about their chess.

Avatar of MarioParty4

A good chess rating is one that is above mine.

Avatar of mirroredragon

if you beat me you're cheating

if you lose to me, you're trash

Avatar of Mugiwara

Online ratings are generally 200 points above OTB ratings. (Of course, there are exceptions, but that’s a rough average)

With this logic, 1200-1599 OTB players are considered club players, so 1400-1799 CC players are considered club players. So I’d say >1400 cc is where you start to get good.

Avatar of ice_cream_cake
Ziryab wrote:
whiteknight1968 wrote:

I used to really struggle to get into the top 15% for rapid, now I am in the top 5%. This is not because I have got a lot better, its because there are now over 21 million players in the rapid pool, and I guess the majority of them are beginners.

"Good" is very subjective, if you enjoy playing who cares what rating you have.

This is true. Size of the pool matters and legions of beginners will affect your percentile ranking. In comparison to my top 1/2 of 1% in rapid on this site, my USCF rating only has me at 93. Even this national pool is inundated with weak players. In my state, where most youth events are rated through a regional system rather than USCF, my percentile is barely 88. That lower percentile score is a much better reflection of where I stand among those who care about their chess.

Haha, I'm easily the worst at my school's chess club where everyone is 1800+ otb (and it doesn't help that we have an NM and Carissa Yip).....I've only gone twice, but I think they seem to think my level is at least "respectable" tongue.png or maybe they were just being nice lol.

Avatar of Ziryab
ice_cream_cake wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
whiteknight1968 wrote:

I used to really struggle to get into the top 15% for rapid, now I am in the top 5%. This is not because I have got a lot better, its because there are now over 21 million players in the rapid pool, and I guess the majority of them are beginners.

"Good" is very subjective, if you enjoy playing who cares what rating you have.

This is true. Size of the pool matters and legions of beginners will affect your percentile ranking. In comparison to my top 1/2 of 1% in rapid on this site, my USCF rating only has me at 93. Even this national pool is inundated with weak players. In my state, where most youth events are rated through a regional system rather than USCF, my percentile is barely 88. That lower percentile score is a much better reflection of where I stand among those who care about their chess.

Haha, I'm easily the worst at my school's chess club where everyone is 1800+ otb (and it doesn't help that we have an NM and Carissa Yip).....I've only gone twice, but I think they seem to think my level is at least "respectable" or maybe they were just being nice lol.

You should go consistently. That’s a great learning environment.