1600 Good or Bad?

Well, I got an interesting question here. If you're a 1600 or so player, are you a good chess player or not? Statistically speaking, a 1600 player is playing better than 90+% people who play chess. So, I guess you can consider yourself a good player.

But on the other hand, a 1600 player is still light years behind 2200 Master level players who, in turn, are still far behind 2500 Grandmasters. So, in this case, you can't say that you're a good player.

What do you think?

P.S. Also intersting is to put things in perspecitive of Money. Can you, as a 1600 player make money in chess? Can you make more money if you're a 2200 player? A 2500 player? Is monetary component a good measurement? I have a feeling I will see a lot of interesting replies.

You said it yourself. It's relative.

SupremeOverlord - Eric is not making good money from chess, he's making good money from chessplayers! By providing us with a service, webpage and application programming and other technological skills (not all his own, but still different from chess), Eric is a classic example of a successful (I hope) entrepeneur.

Unless you are in the top 10 or 20 in the world, don't expect to make a living solely on chess. It won't be enough.

1600 USCF is better than 83% of rated players, which is already a subset of those who play chess. 1600 Online on Chess.com is closer to better than 89%, and yet is vastly worse than 1600 USCF. 1600 Blitz on Chess.com is better than 94% on this site and is probably better than 1600 USCF.

Not sure about that. Maybe in some countries you can get a cushy job in a bank or university if you are a titled player like fm ,IM or GM. So technically you are making a living as a chess player though not through winnings. How do the Russian GM s and Indian GM

'S put food on the table?

Apparently good!

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/breaking-the-1500-barrier?lc=1#last_comment

Well said, chessmicky.

If you think 1600 is bad why is your average opponent ELO in the 1400's? Do you enjoy playing people you think are worse than bad?

This illustrates a point about ratings, you have to consider average opponent ELOs too. There are a ton of people with high live standard ratings but have an average opponent ELO of like 1400.

no money in chess, everyone solid

who the dickens cares? you play opponents at your level and have fun. It is a game and money at stake is always gambling - and gambling is psychotic anyway. At least for the players who think they get rich with it, 99% won`t.

it depends on ur age ex; im 9 years and im already 1400+ so thats better than a 1600 player who is 60years k?

A 1600 is good compared to a 1200 but bad compared to a 2000.  ;)

goodish

I'm not any good. If your rating is lower than mine, you must be worse than not any good.

People should re-read the above for the big picture.  Anyone in the top 10 percent is objectively "good."

But, moving up from that level gets increasingly difficult, as there's a very LONG TAIL to that distribution.

Most USCF tourneys are split into two sections, above and below USCF 1800, which is roughly the 90th percentile.

On balance, the top 10 percent of USCF tournament players account for fully 50 percent of the OTB games played.

They are VERY BUSY GUYS (and gals), hence rather difficult to beat.  Nuff said?

Ziryab, how did you get your Online points so inflated compared to your blitz?...

Yes, for obvious reasons I too hate that question. 

I would say it really depends. If you are out there to become a titled player 1600 is bad. but if you are an ameture i would say you are doing well