What Playing Level is Respectable?

I think players above 1800 are good, on that level they understand chess strategy and don't loose the game because of one mistake. However... when I started playing chess I thought 1400 is great

That's true. Ofcourse my opinion might change if I get a higher rating but for now ,with a low rating, I'll stick to this

Well actually I respect anyone who can play chess because it is an amazing game.

I think everything is so relative...

The respectable level should be a function of mainly the age of the player and his rating.If you play with an8 year old child and before your move you need to think 2 mins or more,you can't say you don't kind of respect him in the end,even if you are 1800 rate or more and he/she is 1000 or below...

I respect any chess player who make me think a lot and put me in a nice productive trouble...

I haven't been playing long, but since i've started i've found no matter how low my rating was I always targeted playing and beating players who were rated 100-200 above me (not successfully usually). In essence i'm saying while every chess player respects GM's etc, most players earn to be that little bit better than they already are and hence every chess player has a respect for anyone ranked that little bit above them, even if that rating maybe below average. My rating has improved significantly recently (but that is only because I make fewer blunders/mistakes), yet I still want to be as good as the people 100-200 points above me. Does the ambition to improve make you respectable? Probably, but a rating of 2700+ definetely does

I agree. When I become 2000 I will think I'm good, but will be mad that I'm not a grandmaster yet! Right now I want to be 2000, but that will probably change when I become 2000.

Hi guys,

Anyone that has the skill to play a rated chess game is respectable.  It is like boxing, if you have the courage to fight me you are respectable.  But I am sure what is meant by this question is what is respectable in our chess world.  I guess I respect anyone that can beat me.  But to address the real intent of the question, I think any titled player, not ranked player but titled player, has earned the chess communities respect.  That is why we grant them a title.

Watch your backrank.

For sure, NM and above is respectable.

Edit: I just read post #1, and it was my grammar thread which was referenced! Thanks for reading. :-)

Lets be honest here, my rating is about 1,150; put me in a room with some GMs talking and I will still be able to understand most of the logic behind their moves. It's not the respectable rating, it's knowing the basic terms that separate those who know nothing and those who understand.

I think we've pretty much fulfilled the objective of the initial post.  thank you everyone for your thoughts.

I will repeat for clarity...when I used "respectable", I was definitely implying someone with a strong comprehension of what's going on in the game...an awareness of what skills and positions are intrinsic to the game.  Someone who, unlike me, actually feels the implications and consequences of controlling the center, not just hears the words "control the center" and tries to put pieces there.  Someone who grasps deeply the strengths weaknesses of positions.   

It is beginning to seem to me that it's not even easy to pin it down unless you're already there.  Wherever there is.

Hmm ... well... I agree with what all the masters said in this thread... less likely to be wrong that way :P.

Great thread guys!

I view 1000 and up as respectable.  Below that, I find people often make mistakes and hang pieces, but above that is good enough to beat me with tactics and memorized moves.

I think on a personal level that ANYONE under Zero rating, e.g. minus -14 ect is clearly not worth playing, just my personal thoughts, don;t hate me,  above 0 is a good rating =)

but seriously to my rating, a respectable rating to me is anyone above and anyone below to about 500 points of my current rating, 

I suppose morally speaking we should all be respectable of each other.  Gens Una Sumus.  That being the motto of FIDE (the chess federation).  But I understand what the question is asking so...2300 Fide elo.  Internationally recognized.  Simple. No?

I agree with the post about understanding the terms. I would add to that the idea of understanding some basic strategy. As GM Bisguier used to say when giving simuls - "I let my fingers move, I only get in trouble when my brain takes over". The sentiment is that he would make the first move which looked good, and just move on. It is exactly this idea, that a move can "just look good" which I would strive for when categorizing a player as having some basic understanding about chess.

The good thing is that most moves that look good are usually good. Some positions are easier than others, like in some there are obvious checks but in others you need a very strong understanding to come up with a plan. Or maybe the position is very sharp. It is in these positions that best show how good you are. You need real skill to play well in those, and that is respectable.

Agreed. Some positions you should consider how to attack, some you should consider how to defend, some you should first consider how your opponent will attack, etc. Sometimes it is simply the fight over a square here, an outpost there. Once you develop a sense of how to fight these types of battles, the trick becomes in when to do one vs another.

I often have the same question about musicianship. I really love to play guitar and there's always the question when one is 'good enough'. It's pretty pointless to think about such things in an absolute way. What is 'good enough', in the first place? Better than 50%? 90%? 99%? The best chess player(s) in the world do serve as a guideline as to what is the maximum attainable leve for us puny mortals, but are they the only ones 'respectable'? How can one say level A to be more respectable than B? Doesn't that depend on all the other factors involved? Dedication? Years of playing? Starting age? Physical condition?

Even though my level isn't that high, I try to give it my best every game, isn't that respectable enough in itself?

 Thanks!  I judge my rating by my long, which is usually around 1100.  I do Chess Mentor and tactics trainer and hope to some day become a "respectable" chess player.  I agree that the better you are, the more fun chess is.