What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?
Sort:
Not sure, this is topic is definitely up for debate. But I think your estimates are fairly accurate. 
I think that 1800 would be great. If you go to your online games and click on players there is a graph that shows players and the average is 1310. When it gets to 1700-1900 it begins to really thin out to just a few.
I'm really happy to stay 1300+
You can view a distribution on ratings on here (http://www.chess.com/echess/players.html). It follows pretty typical Gaussian (aka "Bell) distribution, so if "good" is considered being in the top quarter, or tenth, or whatever you can go and find it yourself. It seems average on here is centered at 1310.
"Good" is relative. When I was a sophomore in college I thought I was good because I was one of the two best at the club. The next year a freshman came who was 600 points higher rated than me. Then I was not good at all.
In the United States if you ask someone if they play chess and they say "no," it's because they don't know how the horsey moves. In Russia, if you ask someone if they play chess and they say "no," it's because they're only 1600.
When I was 1200 (USCF) I thought 1400 was good -- those guys could really beat me! Now I don't think 1400 is all that good, but I sure think 2000 is good. Hopefully that will change someday too.
As MolotovRuss said... I'm also happy to stay over 1300.
I am over 2000 on this site (a bit lower in USCF), but I still think my chess is absolute rubbish. I don't know exactly when I would call myself good, but I still answer 'decent' when asked if I am really good at chess. I know I would at least call myself good relative to the general population. But this is unfair, seeing as many don't even know the rules of the game, and I, on the other hand, have spent years of my life achieving this rating. I have so far to go to be a master, I am definitely not content to stay where I am.
currently aiming for 1500+, but it's all relative so long as you enjoy it!!
2500 is quite good... The rating should be: under 1200: beginner 1200-1600 =advanced beginner 1600-2000 good tournament player 2000-2200 internationally ranked. 2200-2300 Us life master. 2300-2400 International master. 2400-2500 grand master. 2500-2600 strong grandmaster. 2700... your near world master. 2800: your Kasparov. (This rating was argued forth by Michel j. Gerb Ramond Keene in "samurai chess - mastering strategic thinking through the martial art of the mind")
I think to be "good" in anything means you are above average for sure. How much above average is where we might all disagree. I think we would all agree that an IM is a "good" player. However, compared with GMs then he might not be so good and 2600 GMs arent so good compared to those above 2700 but they are still "good" imo.
Loomis wrote:
In the United States if you ask someone if they play chess and they say "no," it's because they don't know how the horsey moves. In Russia, if you ask someone if they play chess and they say "no," it's because they're only 1600.
There's an insight that we can remember.
BTW, I'm not any good at chess.
JuliusH wrote: You can view a distribution on ratings on here (http://www.chess.com/echess/players.html). It follows pretty typical Gaussian (aka "Bell) distribution, so if "good" is considered being in the top quarter, or tenth, or whatever you can go and find it yourself. It seems average on here is centered at 1310.
link no work
Loomis wrote:
In the United States if you ask someone if they play chess and they say "no," it's because they don't know how the horsey moves. In Russia, if you ask someone if they play chess and they say "no," it's because they're only 1600.
What else do they have? It's so f-ing cold.
erikido23 wrote: JuliusH wrote: You can view a distribution on ratings on here (http://www.chess.com/echess/players.html). It follows pretty typical Gaussian (aka "Bell) distribution, so if "good" is considered being in the top quarter, or tenth, or whatever you can go and find it yourself. It seems average on here is centered at 1310.
link no work
Make sure to remove the parenthesis and the period in your address bar (that's the problem I had at least :S )
yeah sorry I like to put web addresses in parenthesis so that it's a bit more organized, but I wonder if I should've added some spaces. here it is
http://www.chess.com/echess/players.html
Well, I have completed two games - started with 1200 and the first win gave me a rating of 1601. Jumped 400 points! Boy aint that good? !! Then the second game after only 2 moves my opponent sort of resign. That is he never appeared again. So few moves meant no move in my rating. So it is really good to have played 2 and lost nil. This makes me a 100% cowboy. Yeeha! But truthfully speaking a good chess player? I definitely am not.
I think to be "good" in anything means you are above average for sure. How much above average is where we might all disagree. I think we would all agree that an IM is a "good" player. However, compared with GMs then he might not be so good and 2600 GMs arent so good compared to those above 2700 but they are still "good" imo.
I think to be "good" in anything means you are above average for sure. How much above average is where we might all disagree. I think we would all agree that an IM is a "good" player. However, compared with GMs then he might not be so good and 2600 GMs arent so good compared to those above 2700 but they are still "good" imo.
What is consider a good rating on the site. Well, I think if you are rated above 1800 then you are a good chess player. If you are rated 1500-1799 then you are average. What do you think?