Oh thank goodness i thought you were a robot.
And yeah, the comparison you made makes sense.
At what elo are you no longer a bad player?
Sort:
May 28, 2019
0
#63
MatthewFreitag wrote:
Oh thank goodness i thought you were a robot.
And yeah, the comparison you made makes sense.
I feel a bit like a robot having just got out of bed, but I'm definitely human! My very average chess rating should prove that 
May 28, 2019
0
#64
spartakbarnsley wrote:
MatthewFreitag wrote:
Oh thank goodness i thought you were a robot.
And yeah, the comparison you made makes sense.
I feel a bit like a robot having just got out of bed, but I'm definitely human! My very average chess rating should prove that
haha join the club
May 28, 2019
0
#65
GM_NiftyStranger wrote:
Depends on who you're playing. If you have a rating high amongst trash dummy players, then it means nothing. If you have a low rating, but play GM's and Champion players, then I would say you are stronger because your competition is stronger. Maybe the Elo rating system should be trashed in favor of a system that takes into account the caliber of player you play against...
I think that is exactly what it does?
May 28, 2019
0
#66
kolcon wrote:
GM_NiftyStranger wrote:
Depends on who you're playing. If you have a rating high amongst trash dummy players, then it means nothing. If you have a low rating, but play GM's and Champion players, then I would say you are stronger because your competition is stronger. Maybe the Elo rating system should be trashed in favor of a system that takes into account the caliber of player you play against...
I think that is exactly what it does?
Yeah I think you're right.
If you beat a gm, and you're 1500, you're going to get a ton of rating points.
If you beat a 300 player, and you're 1500, you'll get like 2 rating points.
MickinMD wrote:
In over-the-board games, a player rated 1200 or higher generally has a strong understanding basic principles, tactics, and strategies.
A player rated 1000 is on the verge and I personally consider such a person a good player.
I agree, from my experience anyways. I would compare a 1200 to a safe reliable driver.
If chess was like driving a car, then:
under 200 = has no idea what a car is
200 - 400 = has seen a car before, but was never been inside one
400 - 600 = has been inside a car, but has never driven one
600 - 800 = has driven a car, but never alone, no permit or drivers license
800 - 1000 = has a permit and has driven alone, but still no drivers license
1000 - 1200 = has a drivers license, but has many traffic violations, still not a safe driver
1200 - 1400 = a safe driver, but still has minor traffic violations, needs directions
1400 - 1600 = a safe driver, rarely has traffic violations, but still needs directions
1600 -1800 = an excellent driver, many years of experience, very rare violations, needs minor directions
1800 - 2000 = an excellent driver, hasn't had a violation in years, needs no directions but can forget sometimes
2000 -2200 = a brilliant driver, hasn't had a traffic violation in decades, needs no directions but rarely forgets
2200 - 2400 = a brilliant driver, has possibly 1 or 2 traffic violations in a lifetime, needs no directions forgets only a few times
2400 - 2600 = Everything of the previous rating, but has won the state championship in car racing
2600 - 2700 = Everything of the previous rating, but has won the country championship in car racing
above 2700 = Quite possibly one of the top best drivers in the world
May 29, 2019
0
#68
JayeshSinhaChess wrote:
What is the point at which you are no longer a chess muppet. You could still lose to better players, but so will everyone.
Is it 800, 1200, 1500, 2000?
if you can find out the rating of a muppet then you may well find the question answers itself for you.
May 29, 2019
0
#69
Savage47 wrote:
2862
Seriously, its all relative. In a room full of average people I would be considered a chess god. In a room full of GMs I would be considered a patzer
If you win more games than you lose you're probably not too bad so about 1400-1500. By about 1800 most people are pretty decent players. 1800s don't make major tactical mistakes very often and have a decent understanding of the game.
Keep in mind though most online ratings tend to inflated and chess.com seems to be one of the worst.
I think once you get past about 1900, the ratings on here seem to even themselves out. I'm just judging that on FIDE rated players on here, whose chess.com ratings are pretty similar to their OTB rating. I also recently played an IM on here, who is FIDE 2477, but only 1970 on here, which I don't really understand.
In overall sense, the bad player is someone who is below the average elo rating. So get the average elo rating of all the players here in chess.com and whoever is below that average is bad.
May 29, 2019
0
#71
Maybe 1500, but I'm being nice. Someone else's thought would probably be 2000.
I say 1500 because pretty much everyone below 1500 is a piece dropper...
May 29, 2019
0
#72
Alkynes wrote:
In overall sense, the bad player is someone who is below the average elo rating. So get the average elo rating of all the players here in chess.com and whoever is below that average is bad.
I just looked up a 1060 blitz player who was above average at 51st percentile.
May 29, 2019
0
#73
IMRonilm1204 wrote:
Maybe 1500, but I'm being nice. Someone else's thought would probably be 2000.
I say 1500 because pretty much everyone below 1500 is a piece dropper...
1200.
There are some seriously decent 1400's
forked_again wrote:
Alkynes wrote:
In overall sense, the bad player is someone who is below the average elo rating. So get the average elo rating of all the players here in chess.com and whoever is below that average is bad.
I just looked up a 1060 blitz player who was above average at 51st percentile.
Then he is not a bad player (in blitz). He is above average of all the players in blitz. He may look bad relative to you but if you get all the players in chess.com, he is actually above the average.
May 30, 2019
0
#75
Average is pretty bad. Slightly above average is minimally less so. In my experience, most players at the 97th-98th percentile in blitz are pretty bad. I drop pieces most games and that's where I'm at.
2600 FIDE is no longer bad. Below that, a player's game likely has defects.
Blitz rating below 1100 can be called as a bad player
May 30, 2019
0
#77
There are all different levels of good and bad but arguing that 97 th percentile is bad it's a bit absurd.
Like at the gym, you would not call the average guy strong but also not weak. The weak ones stand out as obviously worse than average.
May 30, 2019
0
#78
Blitz below 2100 make horrid errors most games, and I've seen howlers above that. Consider:
May 30, 2019
0
#79
RedGirlZ wrote:
But that is ur subjective opinion of the fact that the average player is easy for you. [snip]
That's ur subjective opinion that bad play every day does not make you a bad player because you have some minimal knowledge of the basic ideas of the game.
Take a look at the howlers I played in the game I shared. They are almost as bad as those of my 2149 opponent.
I learned a long time ago, and still relearn every time I forget, that in OTB play, no one is easy. I consistently score near 100% against players below 1600 USCF because I play hard and take every opponent seriously. I am below 100% against them because sometimes I fail to give the game my best.
MatthewFreitag wrote:
I once talked to this guy at a chess tournament. He was rated 2251, and he told me anybody below 2200 was an amateur. Convenient.
So, based on his comment to me, I have made a helpful table.
>1000: U sux bro. Do you even chess?
1000-1200: u still sux bro, just slightly yes.
1200-1400: a chess beginner who has some faint idea of the rules/way pieces move.
1400-1600: a chess beginner with some rudimentary opening knowledge.
1600-2000: Probably has played a bit of chess. Maybe.
2000-2200: Just an amateur. Average joe. Simpleton. Likes the game, but isn't good at it.
2200-2250: Slightly better than average.
2251: God on Earth/chess genius. Has mastered the game.
2252-2400: Officially knows chess. Not exactly "good" but might be OK.
2400-2600: A fairly decent player. Probably has studied openings a bit.
2600-2800: Now we're talking. A person in these ratings is pretty decent.
2800-3000: A solid player.
3000+: A good player.
I get that you are joking, but by your estimates (considering ratings as FIDE Classical) I should be a complete patzer. In many countries including India and Russia you could probably find lots of 1400 FIDE who could give experts a good fight (and maybe win!). Ratings are relative.
Considering chess.com ratings, I find that most people rated 1700-1800 are potentially dangerous at times.
I once talked to this guy at a chess tournament. He was rated 2251, and he told me anybody below 2200 was an amateur. Convenient.
So, based on his comment to me, I have made a helpful table.
>1000: U sux bro. Do you even chess?
1000-1200: u still sux bro, just slightly yes.
1200-1400: a chess beginner who has some faint idea of the rules/way pieces move.
1400-1600: a chess beginner with some rudimentary opening knowledge.
1600-2000: Probably has played a bit of chess. Maybe.
2000-2200: Just an amateur. Average joe. Simpleton. Likes the game, but isn't good at it.
2200-2250: Slightly better than average.
2251: God on Earth/chess genius. Has mastered the game.
2252-2400: Officially knows chess. Not exactly "good" but might be OK.
2400-2600: A fairly decent player. Probably has studied openings a bit.
2600-2800: Now we're talking. A person in these ratings is pretty decent.
2800-3000: A solid player.
3000+: A good player.
As has been mentioned on her before - telling someone they suck at something they are obviously exceptional at - not cool.
Over 2000 is probably the equivalent of a solid lower league footballer in England. Having played with a guy in my youth who played in the lower leagues in England, I can confidently say that he was an insanely good footballer. He could do things with a ball that appeared to defy the laws of physics. Yet he only every made two substitute appearances for Mansfield Town. It just goes so show how incomprehensibly good people who play in the Premier League are. The same goes for the 2600+ GM's.
I was joking
Yes, I realised you were! I was referring to the guy you were lampooning!