What rating is considered 'good'
Sort:
Jan 4, 2023
0
#2
I have experienced the same thing, I’m slightly lower than you in rapid. I’ve gone up and down but believe once you get past 11-1200, you find that the cheaters aren’t as prevalent. Same in blitz, I bounce around but believe the lower rated players are better players, I can’t figure out why.
Jan 4, 2023
0
#3
Objectively, I think most chess players would consider 2,200 to be good - hence the term master. For me, subjectively, I’ve always used the heuristic of my rating+400. Kind of like what you noted above, within that 400pt band, it seems that I can understand the play, it’s just that they do it better. But, for me, beyond that 400pt range, they do all of that, but also have skills and understanding that I just don’t have (yet). As I get better, the bar moves.
Jan 4, 2023
0
#4
Good is relative. For you, 1400 was an achievement. Congrats. Now, move on to 1500. At some point in the future, you may no longer consider 1400 "good". Good luck!
That's great. I'm still staying at around 800 at 5/5 since I lack patience to actually sit down and analyze stuff.
Jan 4, 2023
0
#6
Good is a very amorphous term and, contrary to James Brown, it is not a feeling. Certainly, we are good at chess because we qualify to go for a FIDE rating. Once we get into FIDE tournaments, are we good? I would say the 20,000 or so Masters in the world are the Stellar players, anyone above 1924 FIDE (the median= 86k people) is an Excellent player, Good players are playing 1500 FIDE or 1550 Tournament (the respective means) (in another post about "good chess", zone_chess says anything under 1700-1800 FIDE isn't really chess), and then there's the rest of us poor schmucks who think we're good. I have hopes of playing at the 1500 level on Chessdotcom before I turn 70 years old. Right after I become King of the World. I might be able to get an 1100 or 1200 FIDE rating if I study, and pay attention!, a little bit more. I need to take the time to play rapid games and then go to an OTB tournament. I've only been playing daily games to judge how good of a player I really am. I think I'm underrated. I've never had the chance to play against a whole bunch of different style players before, who are at least as good or better than me, and I'm in hog heaven. Meanwhile, we can defeat most chess players in the world, the percentage of which is up for debate. We're the best of the worst and the worst of the best.
Recently, I've hit 1400, which was a huge achievement for me, and as I got to that point, I realized that 1400 players, seemingly formidable at first, didn't have that much difference in skill/play style as 1100's and 1200's, despite the 200-300 rating difference between the two. That got me wondering, with these slight differences in play style at these levels, what is generally considered 'good'. I do know, for lower rated players, the definition of being 'good at chess' is in flux, same with higher end players, so maybe there's a sort of consensus where we all can agree a chess.com rating qualifies someone to be good at chess.
(Although on a side note, I do know that your rating isn't exactly what defines chess ability, but it does give a good estimate)