Is 1400 a good rating for a chess player after 6 months?

Hello everybody,

I've begun chess 6 months ago and I wanted to know your personal experiment and how long does it take to become a 2000 rated player if we are determined?

thanks for your answers

     I think that 1400 is satisfactory for six months of playing chess. 

     I would shoot for getting above or on the 1600 level for the next six months. 

Everytime you reach a higher level, it gets harder to go up another level, but good luck to you!

     What openings and defenses are you playing?

     I have mixed feelings about Bobby Fischer---fabulous chessplayer---not so great outside of chess.   I think he did suffer from mental illness.

I think it is a good rating for just 6 months; how many games have you played? (ELO/ELO-style scoring can have big swings initially).

I got curious, and I found this, which seems to be reasonable.

http://beginchess.com/2009/08/02/anatomy-of-a-chess-player-from-beginner-to-expert/

The question is do you want a real expert title or online rating ( 2000), online rating are worthless and no one respect it, compare to otb rating of 2000.

Online rating is as good as OTB rating because when you decide to play OTB, it'll translate.  Based on my small sample of kids between 500-1200 USCF, their chess.com's online rating is pretty close.

The correlation is direct, but perhaps without a defining function.  For example, FIDE rated players A and B with A in 3000 and B in 2000, their USCF rating will be such that A will be higher than B, if they also got USCF rating but maybe A at 1000 and B at 900.  Same with chess.com.  This correlation is direct.

It's certainly not bad. As long as you're improving. 

Fourteen hundred is good in just six months. Just expect fluctuations, especially if you try to learn new things. (My rating dipped back below 1400 after trying to learn 1. d4 openings instead of my usual 1. e4.) Don't get too hung up on your rating, or you may not be willing to experiment with new openings, lines, etc.

 I don't think so. At the chess site I rated 2264 and otb rating 2011 uscf, I told a player my rating 2264, they will assume fide or uscf, not online. The only rating respect otb rating not online rating. I know fplayers who atre rated 2500 to 2600 online, I sorry but they don't count. No online player who has a high rating is GM without having the title from FIDE.

I know this guy from my chess club who is rated 1500 uscf and his online rating is 2525, he never been able to go to 1700 uscf and this duffer is at 2500. I bought five experts to that chess site, we haven't been able to get to 2500, but not this patzer. There is a lot cheating and I wonder if this chess site has this problem too. Otb rating count because you are rely on your cumulative knowledge and talent, too many player consult with game data base, endgame and opening manuals and strong friends giving advice and other factors; really cheating consulting with the engine.

Others seem to be underestimating it.

1400 in 6 months, when 6 months ago you had to learn how the pieces move, is more or less not believable. That's too fast. I'm sure you were not that new.

For real beginners, who had professional training and worked very hard and later became titled players, 2000 takes more like 2 years. Maybe you can find a kid here or there that did it a little faster... but this is extremely fast and under ideal conditions. The other extreme of course is players who never make it to 2000. It just depends on the work you do, and your level of interest in the game, and learning more about it.

Well, now that I think of it, maybe chess.com blitz ratings have inflated a little over the years. (I get that feeling anyway). Still, 1400 blitz (not daily or rapid) in 6 months is WAY above expectations for a real beginner.

I use chess.com mainly to play online chess games (i.e. if you take away online chess, then I probably won't be here), so unless my use is very different than everybody else's, cheating to get a high rating makes no sense.  (I can see people using their own engines online for testing, but that's not the cheating in this context.)

Now, without cheating, given players A and B with chess.com ratings of 3000 and 1000 respectively, would you say that play A will have a higher rating than player B if they got rated in USCF?  That was my point.  Online chess is chess.

This is such a strange view to me.

Chess ratings are nothing but a tool to see how well you perform against other players. Obviously two or more separate rating pools don't affect each other in any way, but if you have enough data on how people perform online versus OTB then there is no reason why you cannot make a pretty good estimate of a players rating level.

Yeah, you can, some people just freak out at the idea that the two are related for some reason.

Sure there will never be a conversion formula, but if you're observant and honest with your own weaknesses, then you can have a good idea of where you stand without going to a tournament.

One part of being honest with yourself means recognizing new time controls can be challenging at first (so if you've only ever played blitz, then you can't really compare your would-be OTB rating to someone who plays both OTB and chess.com blitz a lot).

Part of being observant is noticing a player's highest rating, average opponent, most frequent opponent, and looking at their recent game history. Altogether they can mean adjusting an estimate up or down. Some people, for example, might only play their friends, so their rating is (potentially) part of a separate player pool.

Some people might have a high average opponent state, but all their recent games are wins vs players much lower, or vice versa.

I have been playing chess for around 6 years, but took a break for around two years. I picked chess back up in March, and my skill and knowledge of the game has increased drastically. I fell as if 1400 is a rating that I could reach within the next three months.

Well I've been playing for 45 years and I can't break 1300 in blitz here so I'd say your improvement is phenomenal.