At what elo are you no longer a bad player?

At 1400, you have the basics covered. have decent opening, strategize mid games and can calculate end games to some degree. Competitive against up to 200-250 above their ratings but would struggle to anyone higher than that.

I personally think the "club" player as cited already, 1500-2000 is the point where you know enough to understand higher rated players know more than you and even perhaps sense why, and also are able to exploit basic errors in others play routinely (everyone misses things once in awhile!). I feel I am on the lowest end of that spectrum hovering around 1600 USCF, where I can appreciate chess because I know enough to know how little I do and also that however good I feel I am, there are others out there who'd laugh at my moves.

I think determining whether players are good or bad based on their FIDE/USCF or some other elo ratings is subjective. There is no right or wrong answer to the question, and there is no specific range of players' ratings to confine them to a certain playing level. And then there is the consideration of game duration, whether the time control is standard, rapid, blitz, bullet or some other kind, and the consideration of variants, whether 960 or some other kind.

That said, in my personal opinion, I find that players rated 1500 and above on Chess.com, in any time control and type of variant. sufficiently know concepts of chess well enough for a good game played, while players between 1200 and 1500 are on the way to building up the necessary foundations, and players between 800 and 1200 are at least aware of checkmate patterns and basic attacking plans.

@Candidate35

Sometimes stronger players make me feel that I am rated less than 1000.

Everybody is bad at chess.

I actually agree with this. Being on a chess website, we get used to hearing about Nakamura, Carlsen, Curana, and the big dogs. We start to think of 2300  and 2400 as kinda low. And you hear people say anyone under like 1800 or even 1500 is almost a pure novice. There is a bit of a distortion of frame when you're in the environment and get used to hearing freakish ratings like 3100 on bullet or something. 

People who know how to play chess, and can beat people in their classroom and most or all of the people at work, or the science teacher who is pretty good at chess and hardly anyone can beat is usally around 600. By the time a 850-900 he can beat the better part of most people he'll ever face in regular setting, and usually pretty easily. A 1000 level player will run through his whole high school like a wrecking machine, destroy the science teacher who no one has ever heard of losing, and pretty much beat any "Hey, you should play my uncle Ralph, he's really good, he used to be like Prison champion" challenge he'll face. They will win against anyone casually, and only lose every once in a while to a practiced player if they overlook a big tactic. 

By the time someone is 1200, he's going to wreck anyone at school, at work, and any "Hey Play my Uncle Ralph" he'll come against, ever. That's the time you'll beat anyone who isn't of practiced strength. He's above any casual player, any uncle Ralph, and only loses to people who congregate together for the purpose of playing chess. 1000-1200 you can say is "pretty good" at chess in any regular setting in society.

I'd  say 1800 is the level where things break off. That's where you can go anywhere and know with confidence if you ever get challenged to a chess game, you're going to win in any reasonable setting. All the "Uncle Ralphs" and "oh But my buddy Mark is really good he's was like champion" will get destroyed. He's a god in the Casual World. No one will beat an 1800 who hasn't put a fairly meaningful part of their hobby life toward chess, or some genius prodigy outlier. 

The question can not really be answered objectively because it is subjective. Bad is in the eye of the beholder.

More important than comparing yourself to others, is comparing yourself to your younger self and making sure you are improving and growing as a chess player and/or a human being.  Everything else is a waste of time, and time is limited.

The last two posts (#s 33 & 34) are closest to correct.

Reality is, rating systems don't measure chess strength or ability,  and are not designed to do so. They can only measure past performance. And, as every financial prospectus is required to warn, "Past performance is not an indicator of future results."

All any of us can do is try to improve our game, quit making the same mistakes, & learn from our losses. If you can do those things, you won't be a "bad" player.

I am bad. I play evil moves to sabotage my opponents coordination. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTWQxCoYgXI

Average Finnish player is 1800? Are you sure about that?

It makes sense to me is that when a player reaches the intermediate range, then he can call him or herself a reasonable player

My personal scale to judge my opponents is:

1200 = basic.

1400 = not bad.

1600 = intermediate.

1800 = good. 

2000 = expert.

2200 = master.

2400 = IM & GM's

But, this scale was from the time before I crossed 1600. I haven't updated it.