I have a long ways to go before I would be considered "good" in the eyes of the chess world (won't happen). But I do think to have your goal of improving your rating is a "good" goal for me and many others. Improving period is my goal. It's a fun game and great for the mind. If you are a amatuer player with a low rating or one with a high rating really doesn't matter, challenge yourself to improve AND enjoy where the journey takes you. :-)
What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?
Sort:
I'm underrated. That's my only excuse for being under 1400.
TheMouse wrote:
There are almost 300 players rated over 2500 on online chess. Probably about 80% of those are cheating.
There are 283, and looking at the profiles of the top forty-seven over 2700, all except one have been here since 2009, and that one joined in 2010, so if any of them were cheating, chess.com would have probably noticed it by now, and if someone outside that range was cheating, they'd probably have gotten to 2700 pretty quickly.
I'm not saying this means there are no cheaters, but it does mean that numbers like 80% are ridiculous.
tetraquarkarella2 wrote:
I agree with oinquarki, 80% is to much and staff would have found out by now. For example if you are using Deep Shredder 12, its rating is 3200; almost 400 better than Anand and Carlsen so it would be obvious. Some may be cheating and some are legit; hopefully chess.com closes the correct accounts and no innocent strong players are affected.
-_-
I make one little push against paranoia and now I have actual cheaters supporting me; this just plain sucks.
Is there a word for this?; There has to be, because i really don't know what to say.
cheaters cheaters blah blah blah just don't talk to them and they won't bother you anymore. Or just don't play chess against anyone over 2400. Cheers!
Yeah I'm tired and woozy, it's 4:10 am here.
So you're a completely different person who also happens to think "tetraquarkarella" is a great name and beats the impossible computer?
true, but maybe, that's what they want you to think! LAWL!
I agree with zman1234 , i feel my rating is under-rated , on yahoo chess i reached 1500+ , it was common knowledge that above 1500 attracted the chess-engine users. i have looked at but won"t use this sites explorer data base assistance , no qualms against players who do . the less blunders= the higher the rating , i play chess as a hobby / not to obtain a part role in I robot part 2.
Eh...... randomly jumps in on arguement. STOP FIGHTING CHESS ISN'T TO BRING PEOPLE TO WAR!!! (EVEN THOUGH IT'S A MINI VERSION OF WAR!!!)
tetraquarkarella2 wrote:
I found a way past that and have twenty ip adresses available. So if staff read this they know there will be a third tetra if they close the second tetra account.
So you know you're going to get banned, but you still make an account to cheat a little more?
tetraquarkarella2 wrote:
As for those saying I am computer cheating because I keep beating Computer-4; computer 4 is a joke compared to some computers and humans i have versed. There are many people in this world that can beat computer 4 regularly; its not that strong a computer.
Well it managed to get two wins and five draws againsts Shredder 12; that's pretty darn good.
-_-
- Chess.com doesn't ban people for having dead batteries.
- You lost no games on time except until after you were banned.
tetraquarkarella2 wrote:
What computer was Shredder 12 on in those games? how many games did they play?
You tell me.
I do not consider myself even close to good at 1920. I am one step below mediocre. I am okay at openings, horrendous at middlegames, barely respectable at endgames, my tactics are extremely poor.
In this one tournament, I was clobbered by a 900 in under 25 moves. It was my only loss out of 14 games. Granted I stopped paying attention and started playing automatically to drop the number of games I had in progress. But he won nonetheless. He has since gone on to dominate a field of 1500 average and might win the tournament. Now talk about a good player.
I consider good to be 2300+. So the chances I ever reach respectability are very unlikely in the near future.
And he's gone.
Jul 28, 2011
0
#118
What is good ON THIS SITE ? I'd say 1800, as that would put you in the top 7%.
I'm rated around 1600 FIDE according to my ECF rating of 115, and I'm awful. 2000 would be good in my eyes.
i think in general a good average chess player from hell would be between 1100 to 1200 all those rated above that are cheaters 1800- 3000 . i once achive a rating of 3000+ by cheating playing 2 computers . Most of my 300 wins back then are cheats . So what the heck with rating just enjoy the helllll of a game chess.
As said a ton of times, it's relative.
(All ratings in terms of USCF)
MY two cents wroth though :) ...
Is that to keep it simple you can break it into amateurs and professionals. Simpler still, I define professionals as any titled player. So we have beginner to ~2200 and ~2200 to world champ.
Average amateur may be about 1500 and average professional may be 2400-2500.
To simplify even more (
) good is above average.
A non-player asked me not too long ago "how good are you" and I could tell he was unsatisfied with an answer along the lines of "I'm better than a lot of people and worse than a lot of people" so at least with this simplified idea you can give non-players a rough idea of where you stand.