What Playing Level is Respectable?

I was asking a titled friend of mine about where chess respectability begins...at what rating could one assume they "understand" the facets of chess, where does that level begin?  

When I decided to really learn chess six months ago, I remember wistfully staring at the people with 1400's and 1500's thinking they must be so full of themselves with how great they are...let alone higher players.  Now that I beat 1500 and 1600 players often enough...I see that it's nothing to write home about.  Or...about which to write...(I just read some silly grammar thread in which ending sentences with a preposition was debated) In short...I'm far less impressed and have begun to wonder where the real minimum bar of chess awareness actually sits.  Or does it just keep running away?

All this said...what I'd love is for people to divulge where they "think" that rating is...and perhaps include their own rating...as I'm curious to see a correlation.

The point where a person can consider themselves a good player is 100 points higher than their current rating.

Wait a minute. 1698 is precisely the rating which separates those who know chess from those who know nothing.  But, seriously, there probably is no specific rating.  The horizon of chess consciousness should not be looked at as a line where on one side we find darkness and the other light.  People probably awaken to The Chess Secrets (which shall not bear to be written) at various levels.

I think 1600 in live chess is pretty respectable. In online chess I would equate a 1500-1600 rating to about 1200-1300 true rating.

I agree, 2100 is the level where you can say that you have a solid understanding of the ideas and concepts of chess to a point that you are respectable or even formidable, a curious observation is that the book written by the lowest rated player I have seen is a 2100 FIDE  IM so it's a good asumption.

it depends on how "chess serious" you are. The average person who plays a casual game or someone who studies, spends time playin gtournaments and on-line. My 9 year old daughter has a USCF rating or about 700 and she seems to be understanding all the major tactical themes (back rank mate, fork,skewer)) etc but she knows nothing about endgames or openings (except how to avoid the basic mates)--seeing who she has played in touraments i would say 1200-1400 you understand quite a bit about the game. But even at 2000 (and have played for 35+ years) I still am learning lots of new stuff.

Whatever you are at +1 elo point.

Below that is atrocious.

hehe...I hear that.   

Above 2000 is considered "Master Level". For me that gets a lot of respect. But I think 1800 and up is "respectable". I once beat a player rated 2200. I was thrilled when I could see I was going to win. But when I received his resignation notice it struck me that those mysterious moves he had made were really just mistakes. He probably just had a few bad days. My current goal is to achieve and maintain 1800. All the games I play until then I consider to be "student" or "learning" games.

You'll find that lots of players with not that high a rating - thirteen, fourteen, fifteen hundred, may actually understand a lot about chess. Practice is different from theory, however, and chess is about putting what you know into practice.

I would say around 2700 fide would be "respectable" below that are all patzers that can loose to any PC usiing a slow processor and a Fritz 5 software! (at least in blitz) Now really you should respect people not by their rating but for what they know on chess, not just the practical playing stuff but also chess history. I bet even Carlsen is a complete Patzer who knows nothing probably never watched a game from Timman he may have study Mr.Kasparov games lol but never watche'd Fisher games and as no understanding on the implications of US winning the world title.

But more to the point of the question, the more you mater any subject, art, history, movies anything the more you will understand the few things you know and how much you really have to learn yet, so yes youl be a patzer forever

some chess mystics are said to go into a trance to achieve "chess consciousness", but perhaps i have already said too much............

You learnt chess for 6 months and beat 1600 easily?

Forget this thread- take up Chess seriously- you will go a long way.

I think really your question is about control. Players like myself who play casually, I feel the game rather than know calculations and history. This is probably the reason why my live long rating is terrible and my blitz rating is okay.  Great players should be able to destroy people like me through tactics and superior insight for the game in general. I've beaten up to 1700 rating here on chess.com. So I will agree that above 2000 will get my respect as a casual player.

Having reached some benchmark rating, nothing below that feels respctable.  I don't disrespect others for their rating: but since I have a rating of X in other organizations I won't feel satisfied until my rating here is about that high.  What is respectable for the individual depends on how they, realistically or not, see themselves.  A true beginner might reasonably feel good with a rating below 1400.  But someone who has been playing for years but has a low rating might also feel that this is respectable since it is above the Chess.com average.  They are stronger than most players here!  Some really do play just for fun, without any real expectations, so when their rating does go up they are satisfied with whatever they get.  Others who are new to the game may see themselves as "the greatest" and can't understand why they are not master rated yet.  What is respectable?  What are your goals and what have you REALLY done towards realizing them?  Then decide what rating is respectable for you.

I have always felt that a 1500 rating on Live chess pretty much seperates the men from the boys. The important thing is that it has to live chess because on-line chess better represents how much effort you put into studying your moves rather than your real ability. At 1500 live chess your about the 90% percentile which feels pretty good.

Excellent!  I hadn't thought to phrase it that way...I am asking about control...power over the board.  

How many eggs can a chicken lay before it beats the cockerel at chess?

I’ve watched some really great players, some of world championship caliber, analyze and am convinced that nobody below 2600 really understands chess. On the other hand I’d say once you reach an average rating (whatever that is…1600?) you could say that person plays a respectable game. Really, as your rating improves all you’re doing is becoming a little less incompetent.

I think at 1800 you become respectable. WHen you annotate games, you actually make sense.