My teacher (a US-based GM) calls anybody IM and below "weaker players".
What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?
Sort:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
My teacher (a US-based GM) calls anybody IM and below "weaker players".
Eww ouch, that burns!
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
My teacher (a US-based GM) calls anybody IM and below "weaker players".
In his perspective, he's absolutely right. TBH, I envy your teacher to be able to say something like that ...
TheBigDecline.....And what was his category when he lost all those games to the G.m.s ?
eddysallin wrote:
TheBigDecline.....And what was his category when he lost all those games to the G.m.s ?
He was sub-perfect, or on his way to true grandeur. Some people are destined to be the best in their respective sports, others not so much ...
I hope I didn't misinterpret your post! 
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
My teacher (a US-based GM) calls anybody IM and below "weaker players".
That's just a subtle way to prevent you from going taking cheaper lessons with an IM :P
Apr 22, 2013
0
#169
He typically says that within the context about a particular type of error. For example, "weaker players play too many forcing moves", or "weaker players often underestimate piece activity". I believe he says this in reference to himself when he was a non-GM (but improving), and about said weaker players he plays against.
Makes you wonder what Kasparov would be saying about him.
Apr 23, 2013
0
#171
i only make friends with weaker players, its an empowerment thing (unfortunately this means i have few friends)
Any rating you can walk away from is a good rating.
Everyone is a weak noob wood pusher and that includes Carlson. Shall I open up my 64bit rybka machine to show you otherwise?
That's right - I challenge Carlson against my calculator!
I'd pretty much settle for four digits at this point.
awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
CMGuess wrote:
Everyone is a weak noob wood pusher and that includes Carlson. Shall I open up my 64bit rybka machine to show you otherwise?
That's right - I challenge Carlson against my calculator!
This is both the frustration and the beauty of chess. Humbling, challenging, enlightening, enjoyable, heartbreaking, addicting ...
It depends.
There are players that are 1900 in long games, and only 1300 in blitz games.
Ziryab 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.
There's an insight that we can remember.
BTW, I'm not any good at chess.
Your not good at chess?
That's amusing.
It might be amusing, but it's mostly relative
I think it also depends on the type of game your playing, and time associated with moves etc.
For many top level chess people (1800+) a large percentage of their moves are simply "autopilot" because they've used them before with much success. Not to mention, they've played so many times and found what works in various attacks, defending certain positions etc.
If you play 1600+ than you ARE definitely good. Why?
Because if your average person who doesn't play much chess sat down they wouldn't be much over 1200 (if that)... and literally hundreds of thousands play regularly and STILL cant break 1600.
As someone else mentioned, its also very easy to inflate ratings by playing low rated players. If you are always playing equal or better, than you have my respect regardless of your chess rating.
Good player = anyone 200+ points above you :)