What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?
Sort:
Mar 15, 2008
0
#62
I think someone should compare this sites ratings to fide/uscf ratings too see how much they are inflated/deflated
I think the strength of the players you match up against is a good indication. Right now my rating is high 1600s, while my average opponent is still somewhere in the 1400s, and there's a 1400s player who consistently beats me. As such, I think my rating is a little artificially inflated right now, and I consider myself on the lower side of average for players who take the game seriously, ie reading books, playing a few OTB games a day/week, etc.
i have only got over 1000 yesterday because i am a beginner
Mar 16, 2008
0
#65
If someones average opponent is 1700 and they are supporting a 1700 rating, then they are good to me. Obviously, this is subjective, what's good or not. The way I see it is, if you take someone with the rating I mentioned above to a chess club, the chances are they would not embarrass themselves-I would :)
jasonfoxismyhero wrote:
Loomis wrote:In the United States if you ask someone if they play chess and they say "no," it's because they don't know how the horsey moves. In Russia, if you ask someone if they play chess and they say "no," it's because they're only 1600.
That is so true. Two-thirds of my friends' first move is an a or h pawn. That makes them carp at chess. Some are decent and play somewhat well, but they have no idea what they are doing and are too easy to checkmate. A select few (who non-coincedentally are on the chess team) think their moves through and know theory. They can be considered "good". But in terms or ratings, a 1200 would be considered good in my mind (I'm only 884).
I'm roughly over 1200 but under 1300 OTB and I would consider someone (OTB) with a rating of 1500-1600 to be good. I agree with you.
You want me to clarify the doubts?? Well listen up...
Above 2000+ in any format(Bullet/britz/standard) thats what I call good rating.
Still having doubts.... ask the almighty. No offence given none taken
Anyone above 1100 has enough comprehension of the game to beat me every once in a while
I think anyone over 1600 is a good chess player. Over 1800 is an accomplished chess player. Above 2000 is a superior player. Above 2200 is a star.
The answer is 10
Good is better than bad, or even average. A good rating is >1500 imo.
sftac
LordNazgul wrote:
Btw are there any plans to introduce a reliable spelling checker here instead of this Toggle ?
yuz, vary sewn.
LordNazgul wrote:
Internet ratings are notoriously not very reliable and it depends on time control etc.
Btw are there any plans to introduce a reliable spelling checker here instead of this Toggle ?
I agree about the spell checker. It's not only unreliable, it freezes up the whole post, too often.
Good is very subjective. I think we all have a tendency to consider ourselves good, even if we're really really bad. We can say "well, for where I am I do quite well", or "I hardly play but I can still maintain this rating." Above 1800 might be statistically uncommon, and when you're rated 1400 that might seem really high. But when you eventually get there, it's not enough and you'll think "well I was totally bad at 1400. 1800 is not bad, but it's really not that great either. A great player is probably 2200+." Then when you reach that level, you only consider titled players good, and so on.
Ziryab wrote:
A good rating is always 100 points above yours.
Ziryab is correct. Good is 100 points higher than the highest rating you will ever achieve.
kvlc wrote:
Good is very subjective. I think we all have a tendency to consider ourselves good, even if we're really really bad. We can say "well, for where I am I do quite well", or "I hardly play but I can still maintain this rating." Above 1800 might be statistically uncommon, and when you're rated 1400 that might seem really high. But when you eventually get there, it's not enough and you'll think "well I was totally bad at 1400. 1800 is not bad, but it's really not that great either. A great player is probably 2200+." Then when you reach that level, you only consider titled players good, and so on.
Perhaps I'm an exception cause I know I suck.
woodshover wrote:
kvlc wrote:
Good is very subjective. .....
Perhaps I'm an exception cause I know I suck.
Second that. Good looks so easy when I watch it, but somehow it never visits my games.
Jul 26, 2011
0
#79
A "good rating" here or anywhere (FIDE, USCF, BCF, etc.) is when your own rating today is better than yesterday (or last month) !
The main objective of playing chess is to have Fun! As long as you enjoy your games, ratings are irrelavant !
Rating is like any "performance measurement," (like in golf, exams, annual job evaluation) you should review it regularly as a means to try for "continuous improvement" over time; but nothing more!
RE: fotoman
I'm not sure how there is no such thing as below average black belts, there are plenty of bad schools that will pass anything, you make more money when people progress faster.
I'm not sure how you equate it to college, which is what about 30 contact hours a week plus study and homework for 3 or 4 years, compare that to 3 classes a week plus a few hours at home practicing.
The fact is there will always be differently skilled blackbelts, some I have seen that have trained over 6 years before attempting(and still finding the grading grueling), other schools do a rush job and churn it out in 2 years(and passing with flying colours), the later being severly less talented to being with.
The coloured belt rating is vastly inferior to chess ratings, purely because there is little standardisation between clubs, whereas chess ratings are based on wins/losses and skill of those you played.
Sorry if that was somewhat off topic...