1400 equals top 10 percent

I just hit 1400 and am atm in the top 10 percent according to stats.   

I feel like I am still pretty bad with much room to improve. Or am I wrong and being in the top 10 percent makes me pretty good?

Well, it depends on how you look at it.

Yes, you are better than around 90%.

But yes, you still have a ton to learn.

So compared to most pretty good, but still bad compared to good players.

At the moment my biggest improvement has been in consistency. There is much to chess that is not actually chess. 

When a 1400 is in the top 10%, that tells you just how badly we all suck.

No offense.

...My rapid rating is more than 1400

Lol

I think it is more of a reality check.

I feel that I'm still pretty bad. Go figure.

There are many non active profiles in the below 1000 rating range. These profiles are from people who played a couple of games and then did not play again, but did not delete their profile.

I was told ratings are based on only active player the last 90 days.

Ever since 10 min games became rapid, my rating has improved by 200 points lol. I'm also a 90 percentile now. It feels weird how I got lucky for 200 points straight

I'm guessing that in reality you would be a class B chess player. Basing that more on percentile than the fide point system. So I think it's fair to say you are a strong amateur player. Just not an expert. But it's a fair question. Don't know how the percentage's differ on chess.com to a fide rating system. But screw it, top 10 is top 10

I am 1550 and I just lost to a 1400 recently. That's how good I am.

Well, I am 1760 in Rapid and two days ago I lost to a 1050 player. This can happen sometimes for multiple reason (eg distraction or if you try some new stuff out...). 150 rating points is not such a huge difference btw.

Yeah its been quite a bit of time since I'm playing again. I once lost to 800 guy (I was 1400)

I mean, I'm in the low 2000s...

I've still been made to feel like a Patzer by good opponents.

Those who only know the rules will say that they are bad because everyone else is better than they are. 
Those who play occasionally will say that they are bad because everyone who was at least a little serious about chess improvement can beat them almost every time.
Those who are semi serious about chess at some point in their lives, will say that they are bad because serious tournament players are much better.
Serious tournament players will say that they are bad because they lose all the time to titled players. 
Titled players will say that they are still bad compared to GM-s.
GM-s will say that they feel weak when playing with super GM-s. Super GM-s know they are the best, but also know they have no chance against top engines.

So, in a sense, everyone living is pretty weak, it only depends on the perspective.

Go figure, such a classic saying a enjoy nowadays and yep i suck as well go figure

Take inactives in count.