What do you think is a good rapid chess rating?

Good 

your rapid is higher than mine 😂 

But that might be because I always finish my 15|10 games with 18 mins, I dunno...

compare rapid and fide 

how do you compare chess.com rapid rating and fide ratings? 

chess.com please compare rapid and fide rartings 

You don't...

This is true for all rating comparisons. Why? They are different players in each rating pool and some pools are tougher than others, so it is hard to compare. Plus, some players take online way more seriously than others - things like that factor in as well. Allow me to explain "rating pools" another way:

Let us imagine I am a chess player rated 1500 chess.com rating (time control doesn't matter so long as it is the same as the other "compared" rating time controls). If I am 1500 rated on chess.com, then that means that in the player pool of chess.com players (everyone active on chess.com), I am rated 1500. Now what if I am playing chess against 1st graders who are all rated 1000 rating or less? Statistically, the 1500 player will win virtually every time; the 1500 player will appear like a chess grandmaster to those players. The reason is because that 1st grade player pool is weaker rated (on average) compared to the chess.com pool. Now what if the same 1500 player has only ever played chess GMs but never knew they were that strongly rated, then the same 1500 may believe they are the worst player and that chess isn't for them. What gives? It is the same 1500 player in the example. True, but the GM rating pool is obviously tougher. Ratings are always only relational to your competition. It isn't really possible then to compare various pools. chess.com ratings, USCF ratings, FIDE ratings and many more player pools all give various ratings. We can try to estimate how they compare, but there is not a "conversion" available.

To the op of this thread, it depends on what is "good" for you. Is "good" higher than average on chess.com? If so, then any rating at the 50 percentile or higher is "good." If good is "best in your neighborhood" then it depends on how good those players are. If "good" is "club level" (which still greatly varies from club to club), then I'd say maybe 1500-1800 level is common (or course almost every club has several players much stronger than this and some weaker than this).

I just reached 1900 rapid, I can go higher if I focus. I'd say someone becomes a skillful chess player at maybe 1400 rapid.

My Rapid Percentile is 88.6 % is that decent?

Can't get anyone to explain how Percentile is explained. 

Sihtdaer

i have no idea too

You’re better than 88.6% of players

Rapid ratings 1400+ is not that impressive, it's the 90% percentile on chess.com but its not that great, I am already pushing into the range (1027 to 1300+ rapid) in a week since I restarted rapid WITH THE POWER OF THE BIRD

1.f4 op

Nice work; that rating here is "decent", but how percentile works is a bit complicated. Here is my attempt at a short-ish explanation... (I'll try but it probably will not be short at all, so continue reading only if it interests you, or you are serious about reaching some of the chess levels herein).

88.6 percentile means that in the rating pool (everyone in that statistic), you are rated higher than 88.6% of players. This means that if 100 chess games were set up against random opponents from that rating pool (grandmasters through beginners), then you should statistically be expected to win about 88 of those 100 games (ignoring draws). Is this decent? Yes; I'd say it is - at the very least it is higher than "average" (50%). 

However, things are not so simple...

The rating pool is extremely important when calculating ratings. Any online site like chess.com is going to have A LOT of beginner and recreational chess players. Keep in mind that all GMs and IMs COMBINED make up less than 1% of all chess players, so even though 88.6% included GMs as well as beginners, there are far more beginners in that category and this can skew the statistics compared to what the untrained eye expects. 

What are "tougher" player pools then? Even FIDE and USCF average is lower than one may expect (circa 1200) because sooo many lower rated players (learning, beginner, children etc.) bring down the average. This is nothing against them, but it is simply illustrating that most chess players are not extremely skilled in it; most players play chess as a hobby or at least not competitively enough to invest great amounts of time/effort into it (and that is perfectly okay).

The toughest rating pools would be organizations that require a financial cost to be in; those players are probably better than the average person. FIDE, USCF and so on would therefore be "somewhat tougher" than the average chess player (by statistical average). 

Probably OTB clubs would be next on that list and then finally online sites (where chess.com may be a tougher pool than other sites because of its huge size). The "easiest" player pool isn't even evaluated formally by most, but would probably be small groups who play for fun and likely don't even know online chess exists. I used to be in that category. I didn't even fathom chess organizations, chess tournaments or chess grandmasters; chess was just another board game after all.

Another consideration is how one defines "decent" or "good" because anything over 50% is technically "higher than average" but also anything less than 95% is probably a piece of cake for a grandmaster; rating is always relational. Relational to rating pool (players counted in statistic), perspective and perhaps even relational to potential. These things make ratings tougher to accurately measure.

Although likely somewhat close, even equal ratings may vary in ability from rating pool to rating pool. A player rated 1200 on chess.com is maybe equal to 1000 USCF. The higher rating becomes, the less of a gap between players across pools. Therefore, a 3000 chess.com rating (looking at you GM Hikaru Nakamura @Hikaru ) is probably about 3000 on another chess site.

Here are some estimates I INVENTED just now that are about right in my opinion:

-chess.com 1000 or lower is likely learning the rules of chess, unaware of basic concepts like "opening principles" or simply playing solely for fun. They will hang pieces fairly often, even if the Queen (maybe missing a discovered attack or something).

-chess.com 1200-ish Perhaps still refining the rules, but probably know how everything moves by now and might even already begun "study" into opening principles or very basic checkmates like Q + K vs K or R + K vs K.

-chess.com 1400-ish is probably about the same as a 1200-ish player in knowledge except more experience. Maybe additional endgame knowledge the 1200 doesn't posses (like the fact that opposite color Bishop endgames are drawn a lot of the time) or simply a slightly greater tactical ability. These players are also not directly hanging pieces too often, but might hang things occasionally to one or two-move tactics.

-chess.com 1500-ish I'm guessing these players have put something into their chess by now because this is close to 90 percentile now (varies on time control/rating pool). These players probably learned all of the basic endgames like converting and extra pawn in traditional K + p vs K endings or maybe starting to learn "tougher ones" like 2B + K vs K or super basic "opening knowledge." By this I mean, maybe knows their favorite opening lines by name and 5 moves deep or so. They might even have an idea of basic opening theory for a few mainline moves, but perhaps not so studied on variations or why some lines are favored over others. 1500-ish also has greater tactical ability than the previously mentioned ratings.

-chess.com 1600-ish Probably knows endgames fairly well by now (almost certainly knows 2B + K vs K by now) and maybe just starting to be introduced into "positional" concepts very loosely. 1600-ish might know how doubled pawns are not always a weakness and may know concepts of square weaknesses or outposts, but not fully know how to provoke or use these concepts yet. An example might be a 1600 player knowing it is usually good to double Rooks on the open file, but might not know why or how to use that to infiltrate the opponent position effectively. 1600 players will rarely drop pieces outright anymore, but may in collapsing positions or deeper tactics missed.

-chess.com 1800-ish is probably the same knowledge from 1600-ish but with somewhat better tactical ability and a slightly better positional understanding. 1800-ish probably now knows how and why to provoke weaknesses and enough knowledge to exploit them from sub 1600-ish opponents. By now, I'd expect endgame knowledge to perhaps begin including more advanced scenarios like B + N + K vs K checkmate or Knight versus Bishop endgame battles with pawns on the board (when one is superior to the other and why). As for openings, an 1800-ish player probably knows their openings fairly well (at least the ones they play) and decent memorized theory to moves (maybe 8 moves deep or so instead of 5 moves from 1500-ish level). However, an 1800 player likely doesn't yet have "real opening theory" study into variations favored over others and changing opening choice to exploit an opponent repertoire.

-chess.com 2000-ish (at the time of writing this, I am not yet here, but I have friends who I observe/tell me xD) is now much more advanced in chess. They have refined everything an 1800-ish knows and 2000 USCF (although not necessarily exactly equal to chess.com) is already informally "expert" rating. By now, these opponents are going to crush most "random" players and can probably compete with most chess hustlers or clubs players with good success. However, they get crushed by titled players and stronger competition. Everyone is different in personality, but I've observed 2000-ish rating to be some of the most humble chess players you will meet. They know so much information on chess, that they now realize more fully how little they really know about chess. Some are humbled by this epiphany or sorts and some use it to propel them higher in rating. 2000 is a weird rating because only the elite chess players can win consistently against them, but 2000 is likely the punching bag to the "really really tough chess players xD". 2000-ish has great chess knowledge all around, most certainly building a repertoire for openings more formally, likely much more advanced calculation ability (which we have heard almost nothing from at lower levels since 1800-ish was just diving into positional ideas) and probably starting to do a little "real opening theory study." I say "likely" because I know SEVERAL 2100+ players who admit how little opening knowledge they really have or put in; it isn't too uncommon for them to pick many "mainline opening moves" just by assessing the position themselves without knowing they were mainline opening moves.

-Anything higher than this on chess.com really depends on how much they are putting into chess elsewhere such as OTB or norms completed/attempted. 2100 or 2200 chess.com players would be super strong to most chess players and maybe have flirted with the idea of getting a title like NM or FM. 

2300+ chess.com is most certainly either a titled player, a titled player's second account or someone who is of the ability of a titled player without the norms or money put into attempting them (norms and OTB costs are certainly not free, so many players have close to the ability but don't try for the titles).

2400-ish is most certainly already GM or around that level. The name is self explanatory on how much they know by now and this point (even for online) probably took around 10 years of play and study to reach! 

This is my estimate of chess.com rating chess ability. This won't exactly parallel other rating pools, but it will be close to most give or take many 200 rating points. For OTB USCF (over-the-board United States Chess Federation [basically the USA equal to FIDE in the world]), I'd say sub-1200 ish is learning chess, but there are many players at this level at chess clubs and even some rated events! 1500-ish is probably enough to beat all of the "learning" chess players and lose to all of the regular chess players even at a local chess club, but it is a nice place to be for learning. 1600-ish is about club level for decent clubs in size. 1800-ish is a solid club regular at a chess club or about club level for chess clubs in bigger cities. 2000-ish is one of the best in the club (unless a club big enough like the Marshall Chess Club in New York where many GMs play often). 

I feel that most every decent sized club has almost always one player at 2000+ level or at least 1800-ish for smaller clubs. 

As noted before, 2000 USCF is informally "expert" level, and titles are higher with it being more common around 2200-ish assuming they attempt the potential norms for said title(s).

Who is 3000? As of now in the year 2021, no one is even close to 3000 OTB rating. GM Magnus Carlsen has been over 2800 for over a decade, but there are some mathematical reasons why this isn't too representative to just 'how good" Carlsen actually is. OTB 3000 has never been reached. 

I'm assuming you mean online ratings like chess.com then. Which "one and only" player is over 3000 chess.com rating though? I assume you are thinking of GM Hikaru Nakamura? @Hikaru is indeed over 3000 on chess.com (which is unbelievably amazing), but here is not the only one. About a dozen or so players are over 3000 on chess.com and even more on other sites. 

thanks for the LONG comment

it can also help me

No problem; yes it is long, but it is a common question. I might even copy my post here one day to copy and paste it when others ask it - not going through typing that long thought-out response anytime soon

same