How impressive is a 600 rating in rapid on chess.com?

Ratings are very subjective, and it really depends on your experience... if you've been playing regularly for a year, 600 isn't very good... on the other hand, if you've only been playing chess occasionally for a couple months I'd say it's pretty normal.  As for winning/losing streaks, it's also very dependent on your mental state.  Sometimes, when I'm wide awake and "in the zone", I've been able to get completely winning positions over GMs over the board.  When I'm drunk/tired, I'll completely forget my queen is hanging.

Just remember, no matter how good you are, there are almost certainly tons of players who are much better and tons of players much worse than you.

Yes and no. "Don't blunder" is easier said than done, but it's also basically the core of winning chess at sub-expert level. Most games at that level aren't won through accurate play, they're lost through blunders. Often, a player will spot the blunder as soon as they play it, but by then it's too late. Learning to recognise them before you play them is key, and no amount of opening prep will help stop you blundering in the middlegame.

Tactics training can help, but the tricky thing is to see your opponent's potential tactics as well as your own.

There are blunders and blunders, of course. Some of the blunders the engine picks up are because they expose you to a devastating combination from your opponent, but your opponent still needs to spot that combo. At a 600-level, it's probably more likely than not that they'll miss it. But stuff like hanging your pieces, walking your queen into knight forks, etc. - that's the kind of thing that loses games and can be minimised with a bit of training.

yeah.... that magnus dream will remain a dream for a while

@Jenium: Rating, you're right. Good point, thankyou. (I'll still ignore mine as much as I can.)

@Wits-end: Also agree. Enjoying playing the game. That's the hardest part to achieve, I find. Those who do, are lucky.

@davidkimchi: Sounds better than me, more persistent for a start. Good luck, and I hope you do enjoy playing.

just win that all you need to do  

I picked the game up less than in year ago, and it helps me to look at percentiles, rather than ratings.  My goal initially was to reach 40%, but have upped that expectation for myself since then.   For me personally, I don't find much motivation in the raw rating numbers.  

Also remember that you're comparing yourself against a community of chess players, not random noobs off the street.  Chess.com stats are no doubt gummed up with ultra-beginners that come and go, but still, there are millions of players here that have spent an enormous amount of time learning the game.  Working your way up the ladder will take time and patience.  Take advantage of the puzzles, lessons, etc. offered here.  They really do help.  

Good luck!

@20: It's not all that unrealistic. The progression from where you are to 1500 really does involve hanging fewer and fewer pieces then fewer and fewer pawns. As a player you'll need to transition from hanging pieces to calculation and sacrifices. Eliminating miscalculation at 1500 is unrealistic but hanging pieces and pawns will become much rarer.

It may be overly simplistic though. There are other paths to defeat which you should minimise in your game also.

Do not worry about the rating, playing chess because you love it will yield the best results

Just do a ton of tactics on chess.com or lichess, and play rapid games. Forget every other part of chess study until you hit like 1500.

I do not want to discourage you, but the answer to your first question really depends on who you are trying to impress.  If you are trying to impress a complete beginner?  Sure, it isn't bad.  If you are trying to impress someone who has been playing for a few months, not really.  If you are trying to impress the average club player, not at all.  If you are trying to impress advanced tournament players, they can likely give you queen odds.

The better question is "Am I impressing myself by being better today than I was yesterday?". If you are continuing to improve, go for it.

Now, if you are trying to impress girls at the club, they will likely not know what a rating of 600 means, nor will care.

I'm impressed by your tenacity! Going from 100 to 600 is a big-time improvement. I'm 600, too. Maybe I'll see you in a game sometime.

600 is not very impressive. 

But I remember you were in the 200s before, maybe a couple months ago? I cannot remember off the top of my head. 

Good job reaching 600!

I think what he means is that there is no clear path for him to go about "not hanging pieces".

It's like the difference between telling an athlete to "run faster" versus correcting his posture during his run. 

As for me, I don't have a clear answer for a clearer way to illustrate how one should hang pieces less, as they're all pretty vague.

Kind of. I mean, I'm no chess master but I've been putting a lot of time into study and practice over the last month and "don't hang pieces" is pretty solid advice. My whole strategy for learning has been to focus on three openings (London for white, French vs. kings pawn and King's Indian vs everything else) and then try not to hang pieces. 

That makes me more passive than I'd like right now, but I do for attacking opportunities with each move and my rating is slowly but steadily ticking up. In the games where I manage to not give material away, I tend to win against players at my level. 

I take lessons and watch YouTube videos but it really does seem to come down to knowing how your opening works and not making dumb moves. 

Unless you're playing someone a lot better than you, in which case you're going to lose regardless so don't worry about it.

How is 1000 rating for a 9-year-old?

That is the case with me?

@slo_matt 

It’s more of an end result you want to achieve, rather than a process to help you get there. If you get what I mean. Some people figure it out themselves, but others can’t

I’m sorry but if someone is working hard to improve their ratings telling them that their rating isn’t impressive isn’t very nice. Even though there are many people better than 600 ( wish I was one of them) and maybe in your eyes 600 is a piece of cake that still isn’t nice. And words like that just make beginners feel not good about themselves.

It's simplistic but good advice overall. I've studied very little theory (only some to avoid opening traps) and that's been good enough to get me to where I am now. I'm thinking of getting into theory now because it might be nice for the push to 1700 but we'll see.

just play more and more chess and study more chess, u can eventually be like Magnus Carlsen. just keep up the good work and pace. and u will get there.