What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?

Almost as awesome as 1820.

Good in my opinion is people who beat me no matter what their ratings are, If they are rated 200 points below me and spank me on a daily basis then they are Good !! Since i did not revert to being a bad chessplayer then they must be good seems logical  to me. Even USCF MASTERS start out at a 1200 rating on this site lotsa luck when you play them on their way up the ratings ladder ! 

ratings  are just  temporary, try playing not your  equal, but with  better  stronger  player  and  your rating will disappear and  evaporate  to  the  clouds. . and  fall just like  the rain. but  its  hard to get opponent  with  higher  ratings, they sometimes  refuse for  fear of  accidental  win  on your part or just  a  waste of  time playing with lower levelsince  there is nothing  to prove in it.

Good on this site I would say like 1700+. And thats just a blunt first thing to come to mind number. People above me have obviously pointed out "good" is a relative term and its not really clear how to define it.

If I were 1810, I would quit and take up something at which I had some skill.

1700+ I would guess my rating stays at 1600 cause of timeouts though lol.

i am a very strong player in chess games but have 1300 and 1200 ratings, or maybe im only good at blitz, i think i need to be in front of the real board. 

We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done.  Longfellow

I always thought anyone rated 200 points higher than me was good.  As my rating went up so did my threshold of good.  When someone less than 200 points above me beat me, I could always rationalize that I had not played well; but when some one more than 200 rating points above me beat me, I generally  had to admit it was because they were better.

Actually, I have no idea what you think of my gems of wisdom and irony. From this little attack, I see no reason to care.

Good is in the eye of the beholder. If my Online rating here were below my USCF OTB rating, I would feel that my games here were a miserable exercise in failure. At a few other sites where I have played with lower average ratings, I do not feel this way (although cheating is more prevalent at those other sites, so I've quit).

I'm down to two regular sites for correspondence play. Both ratings are in approximately the same range (2000-2050 there; 2050-2100 here). But there's a huge difference in percentile ranking. I'm usually top 2% here; top 15% there.

Good remains those better than me.

Good is context dependent. Anyone who is learning and growing and finding quality moves that he or she may have missed a few weeks ago, is good! Anyone who I can beat easily is not good. Anyone who beats me regularly is good.

The term keeps shifting meaning as it is used.

For many, above average is good. For the ambitious, that is not good enough.

No, quite the opposite, all under 1800 should spend more time on the game, so they can be part of the cool 1800 gang themselves

I was speaking of myself and no one else. "If I" does not mean you. You may be a fantastic player at 1300 (I certainly was 35 years ago).

Good for you!

In truth, I was unrated 35 years ago, but I estimate that my strength might have come close to 1300 had I been so. I was active in the local scholastic scene (not much in those days) and went to the Spokane Chess Club, but did not play a rated event until 1995. My initial non-provisional rating in 1996 was 1495. I remained in C class for nine years, B class less than three, and am just over two years in A class, but have not been playing OTB much lately.

You ARE good!

I think a good chess rating on this site is at least slightly higher than whatever my current rating is at any given time.

It might be useful if the various rating levels were assigned the names of different types of fish.

My two pence / cents worth...  Other approximate rating bands posted here sound about right to me, and achieving and maintaining a higher rating band indicates (and ONLY indicates) that you are a genuinely better player than you were before.

However, nobody should get hung up on their rating at any given time, and I would never advise anybody to chase a rating as a goal in itself.  More important is to consider why you lost your last game and work towards understanding your errors.

Finally... your rating can and will change a lot in a seemingly short period of time.  If it goes down 100 points in a couple of weeks, does this mean you are no longer as strong a player as you were?  Of course not.  Should you change the way you approach the entire game as a result?  Similarly, no.  For what it's worth, I was 1870 or so a month ago but am now doing my best to lose consistently, and am back down to 1800.  Am I bothered?  No.  OK, I am a bit.  But don't tell anyone.

At the first time I posted this forum in 2007 there was a lot less members then. This site has grown and so has the strength of players here. There wasn't alot of players rating over 2100. 1800 rating at that time seem to me to be a good chess rating on this site. Now we have many Experts, Masters and Grandmasters that join this site. Some rating even reach 2800s. Wow! I understand that the online rating don't really show or do justice on the true rating strength of a chess player vs the OTB rating. So what!!! I didn't ask that. I asked what is CONSIDER a good chess rating on THIS SITE? If I have asked what is a good OTB chess rating? I would probably say 1800. i feel the 1800 OTB rating is very close to 2200 rating on this site. Now that we are in the year 2011 and there are many chess players now than then. I can consider that 2200 is a good chess rating on this site.