Is 500 elo Good?

is 500 elo good?

No. Very bad in fact. But it is very easy to get better!

ya

Players tend to be more highly rated if they are skilled at the game despite increasing numbers fair play violations. The reality is that cheating is very rare at both yours and OP's elo level, so your rating is fairly indicative of your real playing strength.

500 elo is slightly below the chess.com global average. It's alright.

500 is bad. Blunder check before you move.

Then I am trash

The "global average" does not take trolls into account.

If your elo is unironically lower than Martin's, you have to be doing it on purpose...or you are actually beyond help. Even before I made a conscious effort to get better at the game, I wasn't nearly as bad as he is.

As such, the actual average is probably much higher. I'd say I'm slightly below average, despite (allegedly) being in the 65th percentile.

500 elo is decent in my opinion, I reckon over 800 elo is considered as a "good" player.

The actual average is the actual average. Not everyone shares your particular circumstances or genetic advantages and I'm certain some members on this site join prior to ever even having held a chess piece. The notion that enough active players on this site are trolling and wasting their time purposely playing badly to appreciably drag the global average down is laughable.

500 elo is pretty good, and better than most people would manage to get (this includes those who don't have an account). Still, it's not a rating that demands any major respect from people. But seeing that you started only a few months ago, you have a fully acceptable level. But you can get even better! Try to blunder-check (double-check that your move doesn't hang any piece) before every move, and you will probably raise a few hundred elo (and try to come even further after that by training tactics and such).

No.

But every good player was once a 500 elo, so keep playing

No.

Taking into account the game times, how many times you have played, and how accustomed to the game style you are, it's actually very decent and deserving.

Many people who play 3minutes and below are on a time constraint, making the reasoning, calculations, and respectful reaction times fluctuate between confident and remorseful.

People who are 5 minutes to 10 minutes are more likely to ponder a move, notice they are not playing someone who enjoys the practice, and are more focused on classical answers and unrushed end games.

Anyone above 10 minutes and you are more than likely playing someone who can talk to other people, respond to the outside world, and in some cases can delay a cheating option until they learn exactly why an engine gave them the response, refute that response, check on another engine, make diagrams, age or ferment their tea and/or coffee, and still be fun to play.

Most people playing 30 second games are literally trying to annoy people, so stay away from the hyper games, as your score will greatly increase to above 1500 just to have 9 to 12 people delay in a tournament to help their favorite player.

So:

D(fx) length of play time * average score / total games played! + D'(fx) will give you your confidence level to know that you are amazing to your emotions and surroundings or definitely believing chess.com is full of cheaters who were taught how to cheat ... Just like all the Grand Masters that will literally play a game with the ghost of another, sometimes multiple, past champion.

Respectfully, I take issue with people saying that 500 is bad. It isn't bad, 500 is only bad if you have a hard on for ratings. A lot of people don't care about that, myself included. Chess is a great game, certainly the best I've found, and I very much enjoy playing it; I play it for the enjoyment and pleasure it gives me, not for the ratings. If people think that's wrong then that's their problem.

Here’s the most accurate guide to ratings that I’ve seen.