uh_oh_who_made_a_stinky wrote:
I wanna surpass @CroissantDealer
and I have 330 elo 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
When Will you Consider yourself "Good at Chess"? | Forum of the Week #8
Sort:
If you can beat the average person you meet in real life, you are good at chess.
I would say I will be good at chess if I reach an online rating of 2000 or a USCF rating of 1800. As of now, I have been playing more Lichess than Chess.com and have a classical elo of 1578 (subtract 300-400 points because it's Lichess), but my USCF rating hasn't been touched at 248 as I haven't played in any USCF tournaments.
FazThe wrote:
honestly, over 800 elo is decent imo. thats where i at least wanna be
There is a problem with 800 elo with chess.com 800 dont play like 800's
When I was 1900, I thought I am good at chess. Now at 2500 I think I am not really good. When you know more about chess, you see better, that you still have so much more to learn…
I’ve been 2000 rated (exactly 2000, around 3 months ago) and can confirm we still suck at chess. Like for the vast majority of people we’re very good, don’t get me wrong, but the learning curve is absurdly steep. My record against titled players is 1-2-17.
the only thing 2000s know is how much more to chess there is that we don’t know yet!!
I’d feel “good” at chess if I hit 1900-2000 ECF or 1800~ FIDE…
OK I'm 1965 ECF atm .... I'm not bad but not particularly good.
With respect, the heck are you doing at 1965 ECF? Normally people’s classical ratings are 150-200 points lower than online! You must need to play more online my friend. Most people I know who are more than 1900ECF are like 2100+ online haha, not hundreds of points lower than me 😅