is 2400 puzzle ratings good enough?

yeah

Hmm, I would probably say that chess.com puzzle ratings rarely reflect actual chess performance level, the most accurate way to see if you are grandmaster level is to get your rapid rating. 2500+ is grandmaster level on average I think.

Meaning 2500+ in rapid, many grandmasters are 3400+ in puzzles

If you desire the grandmaster title: 1. Get to 2500+ in rapid 2. Get lucky 3. Somehow manage to get three grandmaster norms, winning them is going to be tricky since many great players are going to be competing for them

I have heard there is kind of a rule of 17 in chess: that you should be at least 1700 ELO by age 17 to play professionally. I assume that most GM’s are professional players or were at some point.

My ranking is comparable to yours having played casually for 8 years, into my 40s. 

I’ve attended a chess club in the largest city in a county of about a half of a million people. There have been club champions. I don’t recall that there was ever a GM in attendance or in competition there. It’s a rare achievement.

You sound like a very competitive club level player who can enjoy and excel at the game even if you can’t quite make a living at it.

Puzzle rating on chess.com barely has useful meaning, it indicates how much time you have spent on puzzles (quantity) rather than your progress in chess (quality)

Vfcx

I call BS on that. Puzzles definitely get harder as your rating goes up (at least to a point), and you actually get fewer points for solving them and more heavily punished for mistakes at higher levels. I just broke 2800 today, and most correct answers give me like +5, while a single miss can cost -20. So no, you can't just grind rating by doing a ton of puzzle. You need to get a high percentage right to keep on climbing.

Also, from my own experience, there's a connection between getting better at puzzles and improving at chess overall. The correlation between puzzle rating and regular Elo isn't super tight, partly because they measure different things, and also because not everyone does puzzles seriously. I remember seeing a stat analysis showing that on average, puzzle rating minus 1000 gives you a rough estimate of your Elo, but the spread was pretty wide. The original poster, who obviously does puzzles seriously, had just broken a 2400 rating in puzzles and was 1350 currently ... pretty close to the 1000 point difference.

Well, let N is some rating

When somebody says "I am N in blitz" I can approximately understand the chess skill of this player
When somebody says "I am N in puzzles" I have no idea about the chess skill of this player

You can't say anything exact for sure, but lets say if someone says they are 3000 rated in puzzles I can make a pretty good argument that they are likely 1800 - 2000 rated in longer time format with all other things being equal. Could they be less or more, yes of course, but it would be extremely surprising if they would be for example below 1500. This of course assumes that the rating they have is what they currently can get, not just where they stopped.

the puzzles are rated up to 4000, so i would venture that hitting 4000 should be the goal for being 'maxed out' on one's own puzzle rating. 🥷

As long as there are people with puzzle ratings of dozens of thousands of points I dont think puzzle rating can be taken seriously as an indicator of chess skill

As it comes from other threads, chess.com keeps changing the algorithm of puzzle rating estimation, perhaps one day they implement something more robust and precise

Mine is 3000 , is this good?

Well here's the update that nobody asked for : now my puzzle rating is 2600 with 1019 solved in total . Although after reading all these comments, it feels like it's not special at all 😮‍💨i need to be 2600 rapid to be a decent player

Magnus considers most Super GM's inaccurate, most Super GM's consider GM's poor players, which in turn consider IM's crap, IMS consider FM's crap and so on until all the way to 400 ELO player laughing at the sole 200 ELO player. The "fact" is that 2600 puzzle rating is quite good and the correlation between puzzle rating and rapid rating is something like puzzle rating - 1000. That said obviously that correlation does not hold at the extremes (low ELO and high ELO) but is somewhat predictive for intermediate to advanced levels. Even more importantly, doing those 1000+ puzzles has for sure improved your skill which is the main point.

I was about to give a serious answer... good bait