What means "good at chess" for you?
Sort:
It seems to me kinda strange when someone thinks that someone is "good at chess". Fore, if you make at least one mistake in a game, you are already bad. The only one who is good at chess is Stockfish-engine, which does never make a mistake. That means, that in fact the game of chess is useless, as it doesn't give you any usefull skill in real life. I even met some beginners in these chess.com forums, who think that they are actually better at chess, but still lose on rating 200. What do you think about it? Doesn't it seem strange to you, when someone who makes mistakes thinks that he is good at chess? Or probably there is such a termin as "relatively good"?
Everybody has their own opinion on what is a good chess player. Anything above 1000 is better than average. That could be called a good chess player. 1500 is a huge milestone for a lot of players. If you get above that, you could also call yourself a good chess player. 😎
I remember once hearing mark hebden (fairly famous grand master on the UK tournament scene) what the difference between 2500 and 2700 was and he gave a great answer: "there's cream and then there is CREAM"
Its about having fun, learning, and always trying to imprve. In my opinion!
So in reality someone rated 1200 is in something like the top 10% of players on the whole site. I think in the end its relative. In my experience the better you get the higher your bar becomes. I feel like I'm pretty good at chess now. But I imagine someone rated 2000 would watch me play and think I was bad.
I think that online chess gave people a chance to play against people all over the world. For that reason, I think it raised the bar for what "being good" actually is. I would say that for my case, I'm only 1200+ elo but I feel like outside of online chess, I'm the best among my circle of friends and family. They're not as into chess as I am so it makes sense.
So being in 1200+ elo, it somewhat feels true that I'm in the 90 percentile of the population which is kinda sad. The only people that are having fun and are keeping up with me are people online.
There is possibly no absolute truth to it.
Yet, one can set some boundaries, like: to keep blundering pawns and pieces 5 times a game after a year playing is bad, hence, can't be any good.
Imo, to be a good chess player of any kind within any group should involve you improved over yourself, worked on your flaws, things like that.
While one may be nifty and seriously looking at the board right after learning the rules of chess, which is better than being clumsy and shallow, I don't think anyone can be named "good" at that stage.
Last word upon it: you'll find three "average" in chess players:
_ Chess players who compete officially in real life chess clubs over the board (av. 1600)
_ Chess players online (av. 600-800)
_ Other chess players (av. unknown but probably around 200)
Above average is good.
Voilà.
To me "good at chess" is over 1500. That to me means you've put time and dedication at the game and are quite above average.
A doctor who makes a medical error isn’t necessarily bad at medicine. Making mistakes doesn’t define someone as incompetent.
To determine the threshold for a decent level in chess, we’d need to gather all Elo ratings worldwide and calculate an average. This would give the global level that defines what it means to 'be good'.
It's challenging because we’d need the Elo ratings from all chess sites plus all official ratings, recognizing that online ratings aren’t always accurate reflections of official ones. Also, someone with an official rating may also have an online account, making it hard to separate them. Plus, anonymous accounts add another layer of difficulty.
Ludo2001Aube a écrit :
A doctor who makes a medical error isn’t necessarily bad at medicine. Making mistakes doesn’t define someone as incompetent.
Yes it does. One mistake sure can happen, but if it's the one too many, then you're a failure at your job. Some jobs allow a mistake or a few mistakes, surgery suffers no mistake.
The number of tolerable mistakes do sure vary from a situation to an other. yet, in more situations than you wish, the number is zero.
In every job, you'll have a scale of mistakes that do rank you from very bad to very good. That's what defines a professional.
Besides, the example you took is the worst of all. For you can waste a pair of shoes, a car, a computer, money, but not someone's life nor someone's health. And what caused the doctor's mistake you were talking about? What? Negligence? Ooooh, that's not good. Not good at all. El Doctor looked at their mobile phone instead focusing on the patient. Of course that's a TERRIBLE doctor.
When I mentioned the doctor example, I was referring to a single, alone mistake, not due to negligence, something like getting the name of a medication wrong or a similar type of error.I meant a pure mistake. Also, I disagree with the idea that surgery is free from the risk of mistakes. That’s why I refuse to undergo an operation for one of my nasal conditions. Youtube: "Empty Nose Syndrome as a Consequence of Turbinoplasty and Septoplasty: Part One" the video clearly illustrates the conflicts that can exist in the medical field and shows that even medicine can have errors.
When toxic and salty players calling you "cheating" you know you're good at chess.
Seriously though, for me if you studied/learned at least one opening and be familiar with it you're already good.
As long as you're enjoying it ^-^
1700+ is "good" 2000+ is very good and 2200+ is master. (OTB)
As long as they can beat someone with at least 400…
Intermediate-level could be considered good...when you approach the upoer-teens level, tho, approaching the 2000 platform, it could be considered Great instead.
Hripfria202 wrote:
It seems to me kinda strange when someone thinks that someone is "good at chess". Fore, if you make at least one mistake in a game, you are already bad. The only one who is good at chess is Stockfish-engine, which does never make a mistake. That means, that in fact the game of chess is useless, as it doesn't give you any usefull skill in real life. I even met some beginners in these chess.com forums, who think that they are actually better at chess, but still lose on rating 200. What do you think about it? Doesn't it seem strange to you, when someone who makes mistakes thinks that he is good at chess? Or probably there is such a termin as "relatively good"?
In 20 years engines will be much better than today, and from that point of view today's engines make mistakes as well. By that standard only perfect play is good, which I don't agree with. Though good is certainly subjective.
For me 2 000 FIDE player is an excellent player. For super GM, such a player is very bad. 
Hello i love pizza
The question of the thread is all in that "for you". So, just to express my personal idea on the matter...
...for me, "good at chess" means having the playing strength of a Candidate Master or a National Master, when chess starts to get serious. ( Not surprisingly, very few of those who know me know that I play chess. If I were a Master it would be different... I'm sure I would let friends, family and colleagues know )
From a relative perspective, however, anyone is good compared to those who play worse than them. Obvious.