this is a perfect example of why we create misery in our lives. stop comparing. why does it matter? it's an artificial number?
What rating is considered "good"?
it's an artificial number?
As opposed to... an organic number? A number that grows on trees?
What rating is considered "good"?
1000? probably not
1200? i don't think so?
maybe 1400? naa, it does not sound sexy enough.
1600? it's somewhere middle
1800? it's getting hot
2000? ooh
2000+ is very good, we all know that
Generally it's [your rating]+50 to 200 is good.
So over 2000 as "very good" is not something "we all know" because a 2300 player considers 2000 to be ignorant and fumbling.
Also something like:
1300 is godlike to the average person on the street.
2200 is godlike to average club player
2700 is godlike to semi pros
it's an artificial number?
As opposed to... an organic number? A number that grows on trees?
it's an artificial number?
As opposed to... an organic number? A number that grows on trees?
LOL
After you are 2000+, you don't feel it's "good" anymore. My emotions towards my current rating are the same as when I was 1300, although objectively I know I'm better than before, but it doesn't really feel like it.
Maybe right after you win a tournament and gain a lot of rating, you feel like you're suddenly really good, I guess.
After you are 2000+, you don't feel it's "good" anymore. My emotions towards my current rating are the same as when I was 1300, although objectively I know I'm better than before, but it doesn't really feel like it.
this is a perfect example of why we create misery in our lives. stop comparing. why does it matter? it's an artificial number?
It is not an "artificial" number. It is a relatively accurate indication of one's strength as compared to other chess players.
it's an artificial number?
As opposed to... an organic number? A number that grows on trees?
exactly my point. it's an illusionary target. it doesn't grow on trees. thanks for consolidating my viewpoint. ![]()
The number is objective, rendered by mathematics, logical, and based purely on performance. It's the exact opposite of what you suggest.
Although yes, psychologically it's incorrect to focus on this number. Focus on improvement, and the rating will take care of itself.
If you don't care about improvement, fine, but your attitude doesn't change what the number itself represents.
After you are 2000+, you don't feel it's "good" anymore. My emotions towards my current rating are the same as when I was 1300, although objectively I know I'm better than before, but it doesn't really feel like it.
Yeah, no matter how good you are, games more or less always devolve into best guesses.
Higher rated players win because their guesses are more educated and they guess less frequently... but the game feels more or less the same because there's always that uncertainty about things you don't know.
It depends upon how you feel about yourself. If you have 1000 rating, you can still play among 1000 rated players and enjoy your life. It is the same as how much income will make you happy. I trained very hard in my childhood and played many competetive tournments cos I could not tolerate the 'loss' and could not tolerate being called as 'idiot or dumb' by my bad friends/collegues. Well, I am happy with current rate and will not waste my time and efforts to improve.Currently, I have fun playing with people with same rate. I sometimes regret my young life studying/ improving chess though.
What rating is considered "good"?
1000? probably not
1200? i don't think so?
maybe 1400? naa, it does not sound sexy enough.
1600? it's somewhere middle
1800? it's getting hot
2000? ooh
2000+ is very good, we all know that