A

Maybe this is what you're wondering?

<1000        --  beginner
1000-1200  -- social player
~1300        -- very strong social player / weaker club player
1500-1600  -- average club player
1800-1900  -- strong club player
2000          -- expert
2200          -- master
.
.
.
2800          -- world champion contender

You would be something of a monster to social players.  If you have any friends or family who don't play often you could offer them a game and they'll think you're some kind of perfect chess machine :)

-------

I respect above 2200 because they feel very accurate when I play them.  I've been enjoying chess for 10 years.

I respect anyone who is interested in the game, whether their rating is 2800 or 800.

I respect almost any level of play -- even 1200 players probably look like gods to normal people, and that's certainly something to be modestly proud of.

But in terms of what truly impresses me, I would say it should be someone 2300 or higher, generally IMs and above. That doesn't mean I don't think that, say, a 2200 OTB isn't really good, but when I play them I usually don't sense that they are way more brilliant than me but mainly more consistent and experienced. IMs and above however tend to win by just outsmarting me, which is humbling and impressive.

I think 2200 is where you start separating the men from the boys, my rating 1870 USCF

2833

I'm impressed by people 1900+.  But maybe that's because I'm 1800 and they always beat me!

ffor me impressive ratings are over 2000 and thats in otb play. chess.com ratings are always inflated due to factors such as withdrawals, and you have reference  games  available to check, and lots of time. however chess.com ratings are still impressive above 2000

Elo 1300

2200+

Players 2200 and above seem to produce consistently impressive games, for the most part. I'm an average social player enjoying the game for a few years now.