How bad is a 640 rating
Sort:
royalflush168
Feb 22, 2021
0
#41
Check out John Bartholomew on YT. He’s excellent.
its pretty bad
May 10, 2022
0
#43
I'm only 600 myself but glancing at it if they take the bait and Queen takes rook, white has Qe5 to begin a mate net if i'm not mistaken.
May 10, 2022
0
#44
and if they block with knight you can win the queen with rook takes e pawn
Why do some people think 600 elo is around the level where you only know how the pieces move? Not true at all. I think 100-300 is more fitting for that.
May 12, 2022
0
#46
average persons elo: yeah 100-300. Average chess players elo: ~800 Me after 6 months: ~600
KnightErrant97 kirjoitti:
Jacer34 wrote:
@KnightErrand97. Thanks for you rather patronising answer. There was a hint of exaggeration in my original post so: err, no, I don’t think a a young child who is a beginner with no experience would be able to play at the level of 600-700 on chess.com. That’s not a very helpful comment but never mind. Of course I am making a myriad of mistakes and my game is still chaotic but my question was about whether the rating system was different to the useful ELO system. Thanks for the tip about the feedback from the chess analysis engine about blunders, mistakes will try that.
Well, my very first rating as a kid was 800 USCF. I’d say USCF ratings are close to chess.com ones, and most of the other complete beginner kids in the scholastic tournaments were around the same level. Also if you’re looking to improve rapidly, you should check out some chess YouTube channels such as Gotham Chess and work on tactics puzzles
And you went to that tournament as a complete beginner who did not know anything about chess but the rules?
The first chess game you ever played was in that tournament?
Didn't think so.
Jacer34 wrote:
Having played chess for a combined period of a year (several decades ago) and having joined a couple chess.com a couple of weeks ago my rating is now around 630-650. If the standard ELO rating for beginners is about 800 this means that I am playing to a standard worse than an absolute beginner! The weird thing is I have played a few good games with people around the 600-700 range and each of us seem to have a grasp of the basics of the game and tactics - eg planning ahead with defence and attack and implementing forks, pins etc and knowing how to finish. Is the rating on chess.com different or are all if us at my level simply catastrophically awful?
depends on your definition of "awful" 🤷
600 is an understanding of the basic rules with knowledge of a couple of checkmate patterns like two rooks, queen+king, but you're hampered with tunnel vision and don't really think about tactics, pins and forks and forget to check for obvious blunders when you make a move. To call it clueless young child level is wrong. 600 elo is better than 90% of people on the planet. If I were to recommend anything it would be to join a chess club and play fun games over the board against better players who will teach not taunt
800 isn't absolute beginner (referring to the first post). An 800 rated player would win close to 100% against an absolute beginner. An absolute beginner just knows the moves and very basic rules.
May 13, 2022
0
#51
KnightErrant97 wrote:
Frankly put, this is the sort of rating you’d expect a very young child with no knowledge of the game to have. I’d encourage you to look at any of your games you thought was played well, and turn on the chess analysis engine. At the 700 level, It’ll show you a whole myriad of blunders and mistakes on both sides. (I also use it as a tool for reviewing my own games)
you're only 1000 yourself on 3 day chess that's a low rating when you have hours to think about a move ,the OP is playing quicker games when you only get mins to move not hours like yours ,childish response from someone who is not very good at chess them self ,typical
skystalker1 wrote:
KnightErrant97 wrote:
Frankly put, this is the sort of rating you’d expect a very young child with no knowledge of the game to have. I’d encourage you to look at any of your games you thought was played well, and turn on the chess analysis engine. At the 700 level, It’ll show you a whole myriad of blunders and mistakes on both sides. (I also use it as a tool for reviewing my own games)
you're only 1000 yourself on 3 day chess that's a low rating when you have hours to think about a move ,the OP is playing quicker games when you only get mins to move not hours like yours ,childish response from someone who is not very good at chess them self ,typical
You don't seem to understand. BOTH players get 3 days to make their moves in that time control, so lower ratings mean much more. Also, you've completely ignored his 1900 ratings in other time controls. Besides, he barely even plays daily.
skystalker1 wrote:
KnightErrant97 wrote:
Frankly put, this is the sort of rating you’d expect a very young child with no knowledge of the game to have. I’d encourage you to look at any of your games you thought was played well, and turn on the chess analysis engine. At the 700 level, It’ll show you a whole myriad of blunders and mistakes on both sides. (I also use it as a tool for reviewing my own games)
you're only 1000 yourself on 3 day chess that's a low rating when you have hours to think about a move ,the OP is playing quicker games when you only get mins to move not hours like yours ,childish response from someone who is not very good at chess them self ,typical
"not very good at chess"? you call a rapid 1900 "not very good at chess"?
you're not even 1000 rapid
skystalker1 wrote:
sorry, did not know he was your boyfriend, either way he is a nob .
I've never even seen this person before.... also you're literally 700, you'd get destroyed by 1900's
Jun 5, 2022
0
#56
cbultz wrote:
600 is an understanding of the basic rules with knowledge of a couple of checkmate patterns like two rooks, queen+king, but you're hampered with tunnel vision and don't really think about tactics, pins and forks and forget to check for obvious blunders when you make a move. To call it clueless young child level is wrong. 600 elo is better than 90% of people on the planet. If I were to recommend anything it would be to join a chess club and play fun games over the board against better players who will teach not taunt
Very good comment. Many people like me who play chess in bus or metro just to pass time are of that level. And we are 400-500 level player are way better than 'know how the pieces move' .
If 600 is better than 90% of people on earth than i must be better than 50% of people. 300-600 play very good on this site.
Everyone is different . So, people should not taunt low rated players.
Don't think of your rating as an indication of how good you are. Think of it as a way of matching you with appropriate opponents. No matter what your rating, there are those above you and those below you. As you play and learn, you will move up, but there will still be players way higher, so just enjoy the game at your level and be proud that you have the courage to put your ego on the line and show up. And if you want to improve, do puzzles, watch chess videos, and read books.
mikekalish wrote:
Don't think of your rating as an indication of how good you are. Think of it as a way of matching you with appropriate opponents. No matter what your rating, there are those above you and those below you. As you play and learn, you will move up, but there will still be players way higher, so just enjoy the game at your level and be proud that you have the courage to put your ego on the line and show up. And if you want to improve, do puzzles, watch chess videos, and read books.
@MagnusCarlsen exists -_-
Jacer34 wrote:
Having played chess for a combined period of a year (several decades ago) and having joined a couple chess.com a couple of weeks ago my rating is now around 630-650. If the standard ELO rating for beginners is about 800 this means that I am playing to a standard worse than an absolute beginner! The weird thing is I have played a few good games with people around the 600-700 range and each of us seem to have a grasp of the basics of the game and tactics - eg planning ahead with defence and attack and implementing forks, pins etc and knowing how to finish. Is the rating on chess.com different or are all if us at my level simply catastrophically awful?
800 is not an average rating for a person that has just started playing chess. 650 is a beginner rating, it is not a bad rating at all considering that you have never played chess seriously and you have been playing on and off.