What rating is considered "good"?

That's sad. I was beating 1522s halfway in MY first year

OTB

The following is of course a generalization, but here are my thoughts:

• Sub 1000: games develop in an almost random, archaic way, with little logical structure
• Around 1200-1400: games make more sense, at least from a neutral, third-person perspective; there's a flow of ideas, though blunders still dominate
• Around 1800: unforced blunders virtually disappear, and mistakes are more subtle; games show strong signs of strategic thought
• Around 2000 and beyond: games approach high level chess, where the result is often not based on single, individual moves but on the overall plans the player's choose.; inaccuracies become almost as bad as outright blunders, as opponents recognize such miniscule mistakes and know how to make you pay.

Another way to look at it, around 2000 is generally considered expert level, so just below that would be the 'good' threshold.  Of course, it depends on your context.  Amongst the lay public, a 1400 player is a god, and amongst hardened tournament players and masters, a 2000 player is nothing.  Personally, I enjoy the games of players rated 1800 and up the most, and so that's where I would draw the line.  Of course, if I'm higher or lower rated, that number likely changes, so take everything I've written with a grain of salt.

Stockfish thinks everybody else sucks.  So I guess it's relative.

Your over 2000 is way off the mark. At that level, inaccuracies are nowhere close to blunders, and most masters won't be able to punish small mistakes at all (let alone often big ones pretty often).

Players a bit above 2000 make mistakes all the time. In any somewhat complicated game I play against another opponent of equal strength, there are probably multiple serious errors we both play, and half a dozen or so "inaccuracies".

Of course, a 1600 would have no clue what to do, and make blunder after blunder in those positions.

I love your comments. you say a lot, but it always means nothing.

well from the vantage point of a Newby; and looking strictly at OTB ratings (and somewhat in line with Smithy, which I think was "well said")

1600+ is "good"; not only far better than a Noob- but strong enough to have a solid mastery of the issues that will be plaguing the novice for a long, long time.

Well you don't want to be intimidated by higher rated players.

The way to avoid that is to realize they make lots and lots of mistakes.

me at around 800 'i can't wait to be a good player at 1000. me at 1000 ' i can't wait to be good at 1300. me at 1300. ' i'l soon be a good player at 1500.'me now 'i know i'll be a good player at 1800' a 1800 player. ' i'll be a CM at 2200 soon.' a CM. 'i possibly could be a NM soon' a NM ' i'll be really good soon when i'm a FM. a FM ' one day i'll get to be an IM' an IM 'i'll get good enough to be a GM' a GM ' soon i'll be up there with the good super GM's. a super GM 'i'll be good when i'm world champion. Magnus Carlson 'i'll one day be good when i beat stockfish.

you create your own interpretations of 'good'

well stockfish is like 3300 so i guess that's "good"?

stockfish 'i can't wait to be good enough to find the solution to chess.'

And, in fact, you would be good in that sphere of influence...

Is an 8 year old rated 1200 that beats most of the adults he/she plays including those that taught him/her good?  I would argue yes.  Good is by definition a relative measure.  The other forms of the word, better and best, make this comparative more obvious.

I generally Like your posts.

but I strongly disagree.  as a novice you need to know your place and have respect.   if you show great respect for those particularly above 1600;  you could get a lot of great advice.

OTOH, act like "THEY" are NOT that good- and you come off as cocky.  and get nothing but a game (and a likely brutal loss) from the high rated.

I don't worry much about online ratings.  I have a 2116 USCF Correspondence rating from pre-home-computer days and am currently playing rwo daily games against a 1600+ Russian player whose strategic play shows he is clearly much stronger than 1600.  On the other hand, I've seen 15/10 Rapid players rated 1400 who would have trouble against 1200 USCF regular (30 min/game or more) rating players.

Jeremy Silman says the faster-than-regular ratings at chess.com are 200-300 pts higher than USCF regular OTB. At USCF, here's a graph from 2004 (I havent seen anything more recent but it should be very similar of how regular ratings compare among scholastic, non-scholastic, and overall players.  Note that by the time you hit 1300 as scholastic - you're near the top.  I TD'd and coached a county-champlon team that was 3rd, 4th, 5th in the State Championships in 3 consecutive years and we had mostly 1100-1400 rated players and finished in the State Champs behind mostly teams with Eastern European immigrants!  As an adult, that 1300 puts you a little above the middle.  Add 200 points to the ratings on the x (horizontal) axis, and it should be close to what to expect at chess.com.

In any case, if you have a stable 1500 rating here, you obviously know more than avg. as a chess player in general.

Rapid? Blitz? Bullet? And what year did he say this? Not only are each different, chess.com has shifted, at least one time overnight, the ratings.

Before and after a game definitely I want to show respect.

But during a game it's good to have a little bit of "this guy is trash, I'm going to destroy him" attitude else you may play too passively, spend too much energy on simple moves, and in general make it even easier on the higher rated player to win.

Chess is not  just a game , is a brain sharpener , is a mind battle , no matter the score  or the Artificial numbers on the screen  /  one out of 1000 Brains  likes  Chess and that one is yours that is a real score .    From the smallest to the  highest one  like from a pawn to a king   we are warriors.        i want to congratulate all the players this is an amazing game    the Mayan.

Why would you want to think your opponent is trash in order for you to "destroy" him?  The better attitude is to assume he's brilliant and will play all the best moves, then destroy him anyway, with quiet dignity.  Then refuse the rematch ...ok, just kidding.

Yeah, that phrasing is just what I prefer. I don't mean it literally and it's definitely not for everyone.

The main point is to play your usual game, and play confidently.

Of course, if you tend to be overconfident, then I suppose the advice would be the opposite  Play with more respect, play more carefully.

For me, my gut reaction is to give the higher rated player too much credit, so I have to remind myself they're not so good.