We're all ridiculous noobs.🤭
A good player is rated 2500+ with tangible OTB achievements.
Anything below that is between amateur and advanced intermediate.
Anything below 1600 is undefined imo.
What rating signals a good player?
Sort:
1780 to 1880
It is relative:
good = better than me
Keldorn wrote:
Hi everyone.
I'd like to post something like a poll here. I'm anxious to see your opinion about good chess players (or the title 'above average') and the ratings here on chess.com. What do you think the threshold is? Should 1500+ players be considered good players? Or does it all begin around 1800 or 2000? Where do you feel the border line is? Or is it more proper to define an interval of, say, 1600-1800 as average, and players above this are good, below this are amateurs? What's your opinion/idea about the relationship of ratings and player classifications?
Thanks in advance.
I would put the dividing line somewhere between 2200 and 2500 but I am not sure where.
goldenbeer wrote:
I think above 2200 is considered to be really good: most of then design plans in their games and don’t fall in basic traps easily, they know their opening very well, and most importantly they don’t blunder too often. When I play with 2000 players I feel they have no clue what they are doing after opening, they try to stop opponents plan and they don’t have a long term plan (only 2-3 move plans, but better than nothing).
Carlsen says that he often plays without a plan. Players rated 1950-2200 have made embarrassing tactical blunders against me so I don't consider them good. I have watched so much of Naroditsky and I can't imagine him blundering any of that more than once in a thousand games. I am not saying that you need to be as good as Naroditsky to be a good chess players, but you can't be making 2-3 move tactical blunders.
nastynate309 wrote:
All these forums hate hate hate on everyone rated under 1600. It's rough out here for a 1258, but I've put a lot of work in to get this far coming up from a 500 rating
Congratulations on being a 1400s player, you have improved a lot since you started. 1450 player is much better than a 500 player.
I’m a little over 800, which is about 53 percentile on chess.com. So I’m better than most. I’ve improved from 568 in about a year, so that’s good. But I’m not even breathing the same air as folks rated 1200+. Yeah, I’m good, but not very.
Anyone who has a higher rating than me lol
B1ZMARK wrote:
Anyone who has a higher rating than me lol
calbitt5750 wrote:
I’m a little over 800, which is about 53 percentile on chess.com. So I’m better than most. I’ve improved from 568 in about a year, so that’s good. But I’m not even breathing the same air as folks rated 1200+. Yeah, I’m good, but not very.
That's an interesting point of view. A very mature point of view. I peaked at about 1800 and am probably around 1600 now. Yet I feel the exact same way you do. I think I'm average, maybe above average.
But compared to people who are actually good, I'm a complete beginner. I can relate to the difference between 800 and 1800. So I can't even comprehend the ability 2800s have.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
calbitt5750 wrote:
I’m a little over 800, which is about 53 percentile on chess.com. So I’m better than most. I’ve improved from 568 in about a year, so that’s good. But I’m not even breathing the same air as folks rated 1200+. Yeah, I’m good, but not very.
That's an interesting point of view. A very mature point of view. I peaked at about 1800 and am probably around 1600 now. Yet I feel the exact same way you do. I think I'm average, maybe above average.
But compared to people who are actually good, I'm a complete beginner. I can relate to the difference between 800 and 1800. So I can't even comprehend the ability 2800s have.
The moment you make 1, 2 or 3 move blunders less than once per 10 games and you punish 1 move blunders by your opponent 99% of the time, 2 move blunders 95% of the time and 3 move blunders 90% of the time you are a good player in my book.
All these forums hate hate hate on everyone rated under 1600. It's rough out here for a 1258, but I've put a lot of work in to get this far coming up from a 500 rating