what is a good chess rating?

what number is considered a good rating?

That depends on your perspective. 

This is a rough guide for what the ratings mean:

For me, I think 2000 is a good rating. It signifies that you are an expert. That is where I would like to be. But my rating is 1850. If I was you I might think 1800 was a good rating. Magnus Carlsen would probably think that 2000 was not very good at all. So to answer your question you have to define what 'good' means. However, I hope the above table helps.

I have seen a few different interpretations of the class ratings. In one such view, <1400 is a social player whereas someone >1400 is someone who takes chess a bit more seriously. I typical chess club player is probably around 1600.

I think when u reach 2600 FIDE u start understanding something about chess. Unfortunately i didnt (Yet)

2000 FIDE would have to be good as the brave Garry Kasparov refused to play anyone over 2000 in his simuls.

2000 seems very hard to acheive

Maybe Magnus says the same with 2900

maybe you understand that chess is a waste of time and they should have done something else more enjoyable with their lives

In my experience, 2200s are, despite being masters, not really that far off from us. I mean, my record against them in my time as an expert has been just under 50%, whereas 2300+ I have two draws and have lost every other game. Maybe it's just an oddity of my experience, or maybe there's something there. Wouldn't know for sure.

Seven.

I completely agree with WCPS. For me, passing 2300 was much harder than passing 2200, and staying above 2300 permanently was even harder. It required a serious jump in chess skill. And getting to >2400 required a serious improvement in skill AND psychology. I find fundamental differences in chess thinking between players ~1800-2300 and those >2300 and esp. >2400. Probably GM norms + going >2600 would require another major jump in both skill and ways of thinking.

For what it's worth, I think anyone can reach 2000, and likely 2200, with serious study and play. It does require a lot of work.

OTB USCF Standard Ratings of 1200 or higher generally represent a player who has a basic understanding of strategy and tactics plus a little intuition.  1600 generally represents a strong player. 2000 is an excellent player.  Here's an interesting USCF graph from 2004 - I haven't seen anything more recent and it should be about right today.  It says you need to be just over 1200 to be average for active, adult players.

Note that Jeremy Silman estimates chess.com ratings are 200-300 higher than corresponding USCF ratings.

hm, USCF rating of 1854... no, no bias at all, don't worry about it. No, 1800s aren't good. They don't have nearly enough understanding of the game to be considered good. I know you'd like to think of yourself as one, but as somebody who doesn't even think himself to be a good chess player, I can say 1800s are far too weak. I could understand someone pushing for 2000, but 1800 is still so far off from what could even be considered good. 

I think it's unfair to say 1800 is not good. It depends on what you're comparing it to.

1800s have quite a bit of knowledge and skill compared to a beginner. Most of them many years, and 10s of thousands of games worth.

Good rating would be a number that just "shine" from others anywhere you go. It's pretty obvious that 2000+ is that number or CM/NM next to your name. Usually Masters are pretty good compared to average players. Anything above that is just talent, very hard work and starting chess from child years. And ratings way below 2000 are somehow "easy" achievable if you just put some work and study. It's all about tactics mostly. How can one be considered good at 1700 lets say and strong player if he still hangs pieces to tactics or have holes in his chess understanding like endgames or openings etc. 2000 are not perfect, some USCF are crap even at that level a joke even, they dont know endings or know some one opening well etc, things that 1700 know better than them,  but a lot less mistakes and their chess is starting to make some sense.

test