What rating is considered "good"?

I like gingerninjas definition. it's relative to your peers. if your peers are serious chess players? their definition of good will dissapoint you. if you compare to players who don't enter tournaments and take it seriously, you'll get a different view. is there a universal definition? probably not. as you'd need to make a statistical guess of casual players that are not subject to analysis. but back to my original point, which I think I made badly (possibly a little too direct / borderline terse upon rereading), comparison can be dissapointing. I'd, personally, and it is my own view, stop looking at the number and enjoy the game.

SO

what is an answer

i think your answer will be: answers is, that answer does not exist. 

yeasterday i was 1200 but after reading your endless comments i became 1100. 

Depends.

I think 2200 is good.

Word on the street is you mom's rating is "good."

But I'm only 12 so I don't know what that means

I think if you get to 1500 you are pretty good....according to chess.com percentile stats...you are better than at least 90% of the players on here at that point....that rates a low "A" at most universities...those of us that work a little harder or have more natural talent tend to lose sight of that fact....

1500 isn't even close to a good rating. 1500 is so far in amateur level, it shouldn't even be considered. Blunders are still very common at that level, coming up with good ideas and sticking with them is found less often, and positional judgments are often entirely lost. This isn't just my ego talking, because, even though I am a 2100, I don't think my rating should be considered "good." I very rarely blunder, fine, but my analysis of positions, as well as my ability to make firm, rational, positional decisions is somewhat questionable at times. As I said, 2300-2400 or similar should be the cutoff.

nobody gets to 220o with out trying uscf atlas in places where ti is hard to get ratings. In Missouri I play like a 1400 per their inflation and i play like a 1900 in new york/ texas, they have inflated ratings

Fide 2200 being the OTB grade for a Candidate Master.
Or look at the grade ranges for various amateur tournaments and pick from that.
Really of course you are good when you play a game that makes you feel proud and you want to do more.

Well he said "good", not excellent, superior or great....it is all relative, so if you are in the 90% percentile of all chess players you are not just "good"???...garbage!

Well, it's hard to say 1500 is good when you're a few hundred higher. 

I think most 1800+ players are disgusted by their 1500 level play (as I am), looking back, and so just can't honestly say it was *good*. 

It depends on your definition of good, then. I don't feel like dancing around with percentiles. Being in the top 10% of something absolutely does not mean that you're good at it. Using USCF's handy-dandy MSA info, I'm in the top 3% of USCF rated players. Oh, wow, I must be far beyond good, great, even! No. That's not how any of this works. 1500s are far too weak to be considered good, by any objective standard.

This is actually an interesting question. But not because it has a single answer (for example, when I read the above, I disagreed with the final comment. I can hardly say otherwise when I have pointed out that players below 2000 seem to usually defeat themselves quickly. So the answer is that a "good" rating is generally one that is significantly better than the person making the judgement.

Especially if I don't even think I am a good chess player. Of course there's no thinking a 1500 is good, when following down that road. I can use what limited knowledge I do have to evaluate strength with some accuracy, and it's easy to see that 1500s don't play good chess. Below 1600 is bad, 1600-1800 is almost mediocre, 1800-2000 is mediocre, 2000-2200 is decent, 2200-2300 is close to good, 2300+ is good, in my opinion. Of course, this is a massive oversimplification. It's just from my personal experience.

This discussion kind of reminds me of the "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" question: What is Quality??? Is there really any right answer?

Yeah - I'm convinced by the arguments on this thread. Good is 2300-2400 and up. 

Everybody else is below good and should do their homework, or else - no soup!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WRxEY8o3kc&gl=BE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2lfZg-apSA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOIGCyAR-0w

. . . I keep hearing that a rating in comparison is all relative . . . RELATIVE? What does that mean? . . .

I like this explanation given . . .

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I see "good" as a description you often need to use in relation to something else. .

Rough examples (don't take these literally)

2000 is very bad compared to 2800 . . .

2000 is bad compared to 2400 . . .

2000 is okay compared to 2000 . . .

2000 is good compared to 1600 . . .

2000 is very good compared to 1200. . .

But you keep saying it's all relative? . . .

DENVER

"Good" is relative.

If you are 1000, you say "1600 is good"

When you are 1600 you say "NM is good"

When you are NM, "2800 is good and everything else sucks"

There is no real definition of a good chess rating

(stockfish just says "EVERYONE SUCKS AND I CAN CRUSH THE WORLD CHAMPION!!!" )

* to all of the people that just say a certain rating is good, there is always gonna be someone that is better(unless youre Magnus Carlsen) 2000 is amateur level to IMs and GMs!