Is 1500 elo even good for a 10 year old?

So basically, I am a 10-year-old kid who is at 1500 Elo. Is it even supposed to be a good rating for me?

This guy had 2200 at age 10

https://ratings.fide.com/profile/30920019/chart

I've been playing on here regularly since 2020 no long breaks an not even close to 1500 an got over 20 years of life ahead of you so Id say you got talent. I suggest you play some other TB games as well an excel. Xcom, Go, Puzzle an math games...

Yeah that's good. Far better than average. Though, not quite the best or exceptional talent as pointed out by tygxc

It's quite good, but honestly any rating at age 10 is good. The most important thing is that you learn from your mistakes and get better.

I'm a 12 yr old and at 1200

At 10 I would have been a 500 lolll i seriously started playing chess at 11 lol

U r really good considering I can't beat 1500 really

I have beaten only some 1300's

Hi!

Congratulations! Yes you rank very well as per your age. I guess you must be amongst the best of your shool. If you enjoy the game and you train consistently, I foresee you can skyrocket your rating in a couple of years.

I could help you in the first steps of your progress. I´m a Chess.com coach, please check my profile and if interested send me- or ask your parents to send me - a direct message.

Good luck!

Thats a great rating! I have only been playing for about 9-10 months and could only get to 1239 max.

Based on the search results, it appears that a rating of 1500 ELO for a 10-year-old chess player is considered good, but it is important to keep in mind that any rating at that age is impressive. Here are some of the opinions and information found in the search results:

- A rating of 1500 ELO is considered quite good for a 10-year-old, but the most important thing is to learn from mistakes and continue to improve[1].
- Some people believe that reaching a rating of 1500 ELO requires hard work, but it is not impossible to achieve in a year or two[2].
- The average rating for a 10-year-old chess player is difficult to determine, but a rating of 900 ELO is considered good for a child of that age[3].
- A rating of 1500 ELO would put a player in the 85th percentile band for chess.com ratings, but it is unclear whether this is true for FIDE ratings[4].
- Some people believe that a 10-year-old chess player with a rating of 1200-1500 ELO is solid, while others believe that a 10-year-old with a rating of 2000 ELO is possible[5].
- The YouTube video "How Bad Was 7 Year Old Levy?!" shows a young chess player named Levy Rozman playing chess at age 7 and provides insight into his development as a chess player[6].

In summary, a rating of 1500 ELO for a 10-year-old chess player is considered good, but it is important to keep in mind that any rating at that age is impressive. The average rating for a 10-year-old is difficult to determine, but a rating of 900 ELO is considered good for a child of that age.

subway gift card balance

You appear to be referring to your rapid rating. At 10 you are stronger than 98% of rapid players on chess.com. That is very good indeed.

While I don't have stats for chess.com rapid by age groups, the present world under-10 chess champion has a standard rating of just under 2000 and I would say chess.com rapid is roughly as hard as standard over the board FIDE ratings (although much faster chess).

So, it would seem fair to say that in your age group you are comparable to an adult player who is rated 2300 (500 below the world champion). This is extremely good, a small fraction of all chess players, and the sort of rating associated with a FIDE Master title. There are about 9000 players that strong in the world out of about 350000 with FIDE ratings. By a coincidence, this happens to be about 2.5% of all the FIDE-rated players.

im 12 and im like 1600 :0

I beat you and I’m just 935 but that was by luck

When he was 7 he had >1600 elo

I think like 2500 is mid,

So for a 10 year old, 2700 is pretty ok

"I would say chess.com rapid is roughly as hard as standard over the board FIDE ratings"

No chance it's close to equal to fide ratings. Rapid is usually ~100 point higher than blitz here as well...

Not so - there is a lot of difference in both directions. However, it is more complex than that, as the range for standard is smaller, so stronger players tend to have lower rapid ratings (for an extreme example, look at some GMs with rapid ratings), and weaker players are more likely to have a higher rapid rating.

Note this point about the range of different categories is why the top of the daily and rapid leaderboards are relatively low compared to the blitz and bullet leaderboards (but not the FIDE ratings lists).
Rating of #100 on each leaderboard (to avoid potential high variance of outliers at the very top):
Daily: 2304

Rapid: 2455

Blitz: 2928

Bullet: 2907
It seems the blitz scale is actually the widest - i.e. it differentiates players more sharply than other scales. Maybe bullet is so fast, the number of errors slightly reduces the advantage of strength by slightly randomising results? Shrug.

I write as someone who clearly has a brain that does type 2 thinking (conscious, logical) quite well, and type 1 thinking (subconsious, reflexive) rather unexceptionally!

Perhaps rather than #100, a percentile would be a fairer comparison (because different categories have different numbers of active players. Here is the "1 in 10000 player" (the 0.01% quantile)

Daily: 2173

Rapid: 2087

Blitz: 2458

Bullet: 2412
Same order, except rapid is a bit lower than daily.

Except young people generally get better as they get older, up to a point!

There has been one person who got an IM title at 10, but there are many thousands of adult IMs.