7
What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?
1680+
That is what the fantastic group called the Killer Derivatives is called.
You guys should join. They're really 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.
I don't think that would work, as this would roughly be how it would go:
<1500 = dead fish
1500-1800 = plankton
1800-2000 = minnow
2000-2200 = shrimp
2200-2400 = small jellyfish
titled = giant shark/whale
2400+ untitled = cheaters
I couldn't find a cheater fish but did find something called an "Ahole" fish:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aholehole

Many of your comments are in my opinion, dead on. I am 41 now and having being playing my whole life. At one time I was as high as 1600 but now on here I am pushing 1400. I would like to get to the 1700-1800 level. I love the game, keeps the mind working.

I consider good to be:
2200+ CC
1800+ live
that can change though.....if I get any better at this game

I think that I've said it before, good is relative.
I'm happy being in the top 2% here, but feel that poor results are responsible when I am in the top 3-4%.
I'm in the top 10% on other sites where I have played, the top 8% of USCF players, but only the top 16% in my own state.

Ziryab :- There is a brain drain toward national capitals. Same in Canberra, Australia, where the average rating is higher than the other states.
As I posted before, 1800 [CC] is a good rating here. I usually find players 1800+ very competitve. Comparing ratings from other sites would be interesting but rather meaningless because of different rating system and pool of players. On my other sites I'm pretty much messing about, but here on chess.com it's serious business
.

Ziryab :- There is a brain drain toward national capitals. Same in Canberra, Australia, where the average rating is higher than the other states.
As I posted before, 1800 [CC] is a good rating here. I usually find players 1800+ very competitve. Comparing ratings from other sites would be interesting but rather meaningless because of different rating system and pool of players. On my other sites I'm pretty much messing about, but here on chess.com it's serious business .
I live in a rural area of a western state. The national capital is four time zones away.

As I posted before, 1800 [CC] is a good rating here. I usually find players 1800+ very competitve. Comparing ratings from other sites would be interesting but rather meaningless because of different rating system and pool of players. On my other sites I'm pretty much messing about, but here on chess.com it's serious business .
I think live chess standard here, is stronger than standard at FICS and chesscube. I hover around 1900 standard live at those other sites, whereas here, I barely make 1700.

chess rating on this site is as below
below 1500 ordinary player
1500 to 1800 weak club player
1800 to 1900 average club player
1900 to 2000 strong club player
2000 to 2200 strong tournament player
2200 to 2350 national master
2350 to 2450 fide master
2450 to 2550 international master
2550 to 2700 strong international master
2700 to 2800 grand master
above 2800 strong grand master

I see it's return of the five-year-old topic day.
And a splendid topic it is too.

chess rating on this site is as below
below 1500 ordinary player
1500 to 1800 weak club player
1800 to 1900 average club player
1900 to 2000 strong club player
2000 to 2200 strong tournament player, national / candidate master, or cheat)
2200 to 2350 national / candidate master, fide master, or cheat
2350 to 2450 fide master, international master, or cheat
2450 to 2550 international master, grandmaster, or cheat
2550 to 2700 grandmaster or cheat
2700 to 2800 cheat
above 2800 cheat
There, fixed that for you.
As Al Bundy would agree , a jillion is the benchmark of the best.