I think that 2000 FIDE is overwhelmingly strong, and that 1250 Fide are good too. 2500+ is another world. They are Grandmasters.
what is a good chess rating?
Sort:
WeakChessPlayedSlow wrote:
There's only 2 NMs and one IM in my state, lost 2 games to the IM, 2-2 with one NM (all draws), 3.5-1.5 with the other (one win, one draw). There's a good handful of experts here though and several that are high class A. Our tournaments are normally pretty fun. 2200 players aren't that far off from expert, but they have an understanding that eludes me so far. I don't think it's any great mystery, just better positional mastery.
TalSpin wrote:
WeakChessPlayedSlow wrote:
My opinion remains that 2300+ is the cut-off. As an expert, I cannot, in good conscience, classify us experts as being good. We're still a bunch of patzers. Same with 2200s in my experience.
Eh, compared to masters, we're patzers. Class players are patzers to us. We're in that happy yet sad middle ground where we're decent players while knowing that we're still garbage to anyone that's actually "good"
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.
Apr 18, 2017
0
#44
jengaias wrote:
Of course you are mistaken.
Bent Larsen said that "grandmasters don't know everything but they are clever enough to avoid what they don't know".As for "extraordinary memory" that is a myth developed by amatuers.Anand played 2 games in one day in the recent Zurich tournament and the afternoon he didn't remember all the moves of his morning game(Daniel King reminded him his last moves).Caruana admitted that he always forgets a specific line in the recent USA championship.
The "extraordinary memory" is nothing more than constant training.A pro GM studies 8 hours a day chess.Many times even more.He lives and breaths chess.When he spends hours upon hours analysing positions and games , the moves become part of him.He doesn't have to remember anything.The same happens with lawyers.They remember whole books full of laws.They never tried to memorise them.Working on cases for hours make them learn them.
Show a lawyer that remembers all laws 5 chess moves and he will forget them in 2 hours.Show a chessplayer 5 pages with laws and he will remember nothing(or very few) next day.
So it has nothing to do with extraordinary memory.It is simply intense and constant training.When your life is chess , chess becomes part of you.
I cant agree more with a post 
TalSpin wrote:
WeakChessPlayedSlow wrote:
TalSpin wrote:
WeakChessPlayedSlow wrote:
My opinion remains that 2300+ is the cut-off. As an expert, I cannot, in good conscience, classify us experts as being good. We're still a bunch of patzers. Same with 2200s in my experience.
Eh, compared to masters, we're patzers. Class players are patzers to us. We're in that happy yet sad middle ground where we're decent players while knowing that we're still garbage to anyone that's actually "good"
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.
There's only 2 NMs and one IM in my state, lost 2 games to the IM, 2-2 with one NM (all draws), 3.5-1.5 with the other (one win, one draw). There's a good handful of experts here though and several that are high class A. Our tournaments are normally pretty fun. 2200 players aren't that far off from expert, but they have an understanding that eludes me so far. I don't think it's any great mystery, just better positional mastery.
The only real difference I've noted between a 2200 and me is that they tend to get away with murder more than I do. I'd be well over 50% if I'd just had converted even 75% of the winning games I get against them. I'm not even just talking about having a crushing positional advantage, or a clear pawn or two, I'm talking about an exchange or more for no compensation.
^ Agree, but there must be a reason why 2200s do that and we can't. You make your own luck, as they say. Basically yes 2200s are souped-up experts, but there's a jump to 2300/FM - those guys are a cut above. Perhaps then 2300 should be the starting point of 'good'.
I'm surprised by two things in this thread:
(1) No one has talked about their own experience going from 2000 to 2200, 2300, 2400, etc. Instead it's lots of people speculating.
(2) Far too many attempts to explain chess improvement with a simple bullet point. Chess is hard. Getting better at chess is complicated.
From my personal experience, getting to 2200, 2300, and 2400 was largely psychological. I gradually learned to be more aggressive, to play for a win against players of any rating, to be more resilient on defense, and most importantly, to be fearless. This means not being afraid of making sacrifices you can't calculate all the way through, or of breaking certain rules, e.g. making certain static (positional) weaknesses in favor of dynamic compensation [this one, I find, is EXTREMELY hard for players below 2300 or so], or generally, of taking risks or losing. This is a lot harder than "memorizing 10,000 positions" or whatever other ridiculous ideas were suggested in some of the earlier posts.
Here, look at these two games:
(1) https://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=1351757
This is from the US cadet (under-16) championship. I was technically over 2300 at this point, but not a very good player. Black seems to be almost checkmating white, and yet I never found a final shot. Meanwhile my opponent defended tenaciously, eventually found a way to simplify into a better endgame, and converted brilliantly.
(2) https://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=623121
Several years later. Now it's the US junior (under 20) championship. Same opponent, same colors, same opening. But this time I was able to think outside the box (19...Nc6, 25...g5), and no dilly-dallying while on attack. From the time black's attack gets going, it's all over in 10 moves.
I think in general stronger players are more free and less constrained in their thinking. They can see more, and at least in part it's because their minds are more open and not just because of better computational power.
Apr 18, 2017
0
#48
^Thanks. So to make NM, I just have to really improve and expand my thinking strategies, implement what I already know well, and not necessarily memorize a bunch of new, useless information that has 0 or negative value in terms of applying it to an OTB game that's only 2 hours for the whole game.
chuddog wrote:
I'm surprised by two things in this thread:
(1) No one has talked about their own experience going from 2000 to 2200, 2300, 2400, etc. Instead it's lots of people speculating.
(2) Far too many attempts to explain chess improvement with a simple bullet point. Chess is hard. Getting better at chess is complicated.
From my personal experience, getting to 2200, 2300, and 2400 was largely psychological. I gradually learned to be more aggressive, to play for a win against players of any rating, to be more resilient on defense, and most importantly, to be fearless. This means not being afraid of making sacrifices you can't calculate all the way through, or of breaking certain rules, e.g. making certain static (positional) weaknesses in favor of dynamic compensation [this one, I find, is EXTREMELY hard for players below 2300 or so], or generally, of taking risks or losing. This is a lot harder than "memorizing 10,000 positions" or whatever other ridiculous ideas were suggested in some of the earlier posts.
Here, look at these two games:
(1) https://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=1351757
This is from the US cadet (under-16) championship. I was technically over 2300 at this point, but not a very good player. Black seems to be almost checkmating white, and yet I never found a final shot. Meanwhile my opponent defended tenaciously, eventually found a way to simplify into a better endgame, and converted brilliantly.
(2) https://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=623121
Several years later. Now it's the US junior (under 20) championship. Same opponent, same colors, same opening. But this time I was able to think outside the box (19...Nc6, 25...g5), and no dilly-dallying while on attack. From the time black's attack gets going, it's all over in 10 moves.
I think in general stronger players are more free and less constrained in their thinking. They can see more, and at least in part it's because their minds are more open and not just because of better computational power.
Sounds right to me. I can't say for sure, given my rating, but it certainly makes sense to me, from what I've seen. That's been my entire plan, and almost all of my serious OTB games have me playing some seriously weird, unintuitive plan, for better or worse. It's just that I'm not quite a strong enough player to always be right about those judgments, and so, I'm massively inconsistent, sometimes performing 2300-2400 level, most of the time performing 1950-2050 level. It'd probably help, given my knowledge of chess, if I toned it down a bit, but I honestly think that playing interesting moves with odd plans is a good way to improve. Throw your opponent off their game, transform the nature of the position entirely. Just so long as it's sound...
bluejibb wrote:
what number is considered a good rating?
Like i tell my students when they go through the "Im not good at chess" phase.
There are 7,000,000,000 people on the planet. 700,000,000 play chess. Just by knowing how the pieces moce, means youre better than 6,300,000,000 people.
GodsPawn2016 wrote:
bluejibb wrote:
what number is considered a good rating?
Like i tell my students when they go through the "Im not good at chess" phase.
There are 7,000,000,000 people on the planet. 700,000,000 play chess. Just by knowing how the pieces moce, means youre better than 6,300,000,000 people.
That's a stupid, self-serving definition of "good." Why do they need to lie to themselves? I don't quite understand.
For the great numbers of players below 2000... 2000 sure seems like a "good" rating.
WeakChessPlayedSlow wrote:
GodsPawn2016 wrote:
bluejibb wrote:
what number is considered a good rating?
Like i tell my students when they go through the "Im not good at chess" phase.
There are 7,000,000,000 people on the planet. 700,000,000 play chess. Just by knowing how the pieces moce, means youre better than 6,300,000,000 people.
That's a stupid, self-serving definition of "good." Why do they need to lie to themselves? I don't quite understand.
Obviously.
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
^Thanks. So to make NM, I just have to really improve and expand my thinking strategies, implement what I already know well, and not necessarily memorize a bunch of new, useless information that has 0 or negative value in terms of applying it to an OTB game that's only 2 hours for the whole game.
Yes, "just" that. I hope you realize this is very hard. I was helped a lot in the process by taking lessons from a great coach. If you have to work by yourself, one thing I can recommend is solving complex chess problems - going beyond the tactics trainer or equivalent and trying to learn how to think in new ways. Dvoretsky's books are great for this. His problems look extremely intimidating at first, but working on them can transform your thinking.
By the way, clearly you need to know how think inside the box before you can think outside the box. Players around 2000-2100 should have a good grasp of basic techniques and tactics. But you always have to keep practicing fundamentals.
bluejibb wrote:
what number is considered a good rating?
>>
bluejibb wrote:
are GMs smart?
1439 is a bit too high for you. Work hard and become more smart.
Apr 18, 2017
0
#56
Yeah, chess improvement and stretching your mind is of course no easy thing - I've always known that. Improving my calculation abilities was very hard in itself, since there are so many ways to make mistakes during calculation in tactical positions such that you miss a few things here and there, which could be critical.
Thanks for the pointers.
Apr 18, 2017
0
#57
Roughly speaking, a mathematical answer can be given to the original question using statistics. All you have to do is: (1) assign the adjective "good" to a given number of standard deviations, and (2) learn the mean and variance of the Elo graph of chessplayer rankings.
Below I've shown one way to do this using a number of opinions and data I found online.
----------
(1a)
Here is one online opinion of the meaning letter grades:
WHAT DO LETTER GRADES MEAN?
A represents outstanding distinction and excellence. 90-100%
- These are not impossible to achieve but are rare and difficult to come by.
B signifies levels of solid accomplishment and goodness. 80- 89%
- Good is more common than excellent but more rare than average. While there is merit to hard work and long hours, it does not always guarantee success. Goodness refers to the combined results not just the effort.
C signifies "average- simple, common, adequate but ordinary 70-79%
- Average is not usually an appealing rank to artists who strive for extraordinary and unique. C is however a very respectable point. Recognize what more is needed; plan to move ahead, improve and grow.
D represents results less than standard and/or mediocre- just passable 60-69%
- Perhaps priorities about school or life have not been established. Recognize however, that a D can also mean that you truly do not understand what is expected. You should make an office appointment to discuss how you might take action on your future and upcoming assignment problems.
E is a clear failure. < 59%
-It represents lack of effort/interest. It is a cause for deep concern.
https://artandtech.osu.edu/4101/lettergrades.html
My summary of these statements is:
A = outstanding
B = good
C = average
D = poor
F = failure
(1b)
Here is a site that relates such letter grades to numbers of standard deviations:
"One model uses percentages derived from a normal distribution model of educational performance.
The top grade, A, is given here for performance that exceeds the mean by +1.5 standard deviations,
a B for performance between +0.5 and +1.5 standard deviations above the mean, and so on."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_the_United_States
My summary of these two combined statements is:
A = outstanding = at or above 1.5 s.d.
B = good = at or above 0.5 s.d.
C = average = at or above -0.5 s.d.
D = poor = at or below -1.5 s.d.
F = failure = at or below -2.5 s.d.
(2)
This site relates Elo ratings to number of standard deviations:
"If we look at modern statistics on ratings of the mass of chess players, the overall distribution of ratings, on the traditional scale introduced by Elo, is roughly a normal distribution, with a mean of about 1500 and a standard deviation of about 300 (which implies that about 1% of players have ratings over 2200)."
http://www.edochess.ca/Edo.explanation.html
My summary of these three combined statements is, using some fanciful language to describe the outermost regions, and calculating each 150-point step away from the mean of 1500:
-4.0 s.d. = 300 = the center of the "two steps worse than terrible" range
-3.5 s.d. = 450 = transition between "one step worse than terrible" and "one steps worse than terrible"
-3.0 s.d. = 600 = the center of the "one step worse than terrible" range
-2.5 s.d. = 750 = transition between "terrible" and "one step worse than terrible"
-2.0 s.d. = 900 = the center of the "terrible" range
-1.5 s.d. = 1050 = transition between "bad" and "terrible"
-1.0 s.d. = 1200 = the center of the "bad" range
-0.5 s.d. = 1350 = transition between "average" and "bad"
0.0 s.d. = 1500 = the center of the "average" range
0.5 s.d. = 1650 = transition between "average" and "good"
1.0 s.d. = 1800 = the center of the "good" range
1.5 s.d. = 1950 = transition between "good" and "outstanding"
2.0 s.d. = 2100 = the center of the "outstanding" range
2.5 s.d. = 2250 = transition between "outstanding" and "one step better than outstanding"
3.0 s.d. = 2400 = the center of the "one step better than outstanding" range
3.5 s.d. = 2550 = transition between "one step better than outstanding" and "two steps better than outstanding"
4.0 s.d. - 2700 = the center of the "two steps better than outstanding" range
----------
That gives you about the most objective answer that can be obtained for what a "good" chess rating is: 1650 through 1950.
Of course there exist caveats to this statement, like that the opinion on letter grades is only an opinion, the Elo graph is more like a logistic distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_distribution) than a normal distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system), and the Elo graph is bimodal (https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2550/whats-the-average-elo-rating-whats-the-average-uscf-rating).
Sqod wrote:
Roughly speaking, a mathematical answer can be given to the original question using statistics. All you have to do is: (1) assign the adjective "good" to a given number of standard deviations, and (2) learn the mean and variance of the Elo graph of chessplayer rankings.
Below I've shown one way to do this using a number of opinions and data I found online.
----------
(1a)
Here is one online opinion of the meaning letter grades:
WHAT DO LETTER GRADES MEAN?
A represents outstanding distinction and excellence. 90-100%
- These are not impossible to achieve but are rare and difficult to come by.
B signifies levels of solid accomplishment and goodness. 80- 89%
- Good is more common than excellent but more rare than average. While there is merit to hard work and long hours, it does not always guarantee success. Goodness refers to the combined results not just the effort.
C signifies "average- simple, common, adequate but ordinary 70-79%
- Average is not usually an appealing rank to artists who strive for extraordinary and unique. C is however a very respectable point. Recognize what more is needed; plan to move ahead, improve and grow.
D represents results less than standard and/or mediocre- just passable 60-69%
- Perhaps priorities about school or life have not been established. Recognize however, that a D can also mean that you truly do not understand what is expected. You should make an office appointment to discuss how you might take action on your future and upcoming assignment problems.
E is a clear failure. < 59%
-It represents lack of effort/interest. It is a cause for deep concern.
https://artandtech.osu.edu/4101/lettergrades.html
My summary of these statements is:
A = outstanding
B = good
C = average
D = poor
F = failure
(1b)
Here is a site that relates such letter grades to numbers of standard deviations:
"One model uses percentages derived from a normal distribution model of educational performance.
The top grade, A, is given here for performance that exceeds the mean by +1.5 standard deviations,
a B for performance between +0.5 and +1.5 standard deviations above the mean, and so on."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_the_United_States
My summary of these two combined statements is:
A = outstanding = at or above 1.5 s.d.
B = good = at or above 0.5 s.d.
C = average = at or above -0.5 s.d.
D = poor = at or below -1.5 s.d.
F = failure = at or below -2.5 s.d.
(2)
This site relates Elo ratings to number of standard deviations:
"If we look at modern statistics on ratings of the mass of chess players, the overall distribution of ratings, on the traditional scale introduced by Elo, is roughly a normal distribution, with a mean of about 1500 and a standard deviation of about 300 (which implies that about 1% of players have ratings over 2200)."
http://www.edochess.ca/Edo.explanation.html
My summary of these three combined statements is, using some fanciful language to describe the outermost regions, and calculating each 150-point step away from the mean of 1500:
-4.0 s.d. = 300 = the center of the "two steps worse than terrible" range
-3.5 s.d. = 450 = transition between "one step worse than terrible" and "one steps worse than terrible"
-3.0 s.d. = 600 = the center of the "one step worse than terrible" range
-2.5 s.d. = 750 = transition between "terrible" and "one step worse than terrible"
-2.0 s.d. = 900 = the center of the "terrible" range
-1.5 s.d. = 1050 = transition between "bad" and "terrible"
-1.0 s.d. = 1200 = the center of the "bad" range
-0.5 s.d. = 1350 = transition between "average" and "bad"
0.0 s.d. = 1500 = the center of the "average" range
0.5 s.d. = 1650 = transition between "average" and "good"
1.0 s.d. = 1800 = the center of the "good" range
1.5 s.d. = 1950 = transition between "good" and "outstanding"
2.0 s.d. = 2100 = the center of the "outstanding" range
2.5 s.d. = 2250 = transition between "outstanding" and "one step better than outstanding"
3.0 s.d. = 2400 = the center of the "one step better than outstanding" range
3.5 s.d. = 2550 = transition between "one step better than outstanding" and "two steps better than outstanding"
4.0 s.d. - 2700 = the center of the "two steps better than outstanding" range
----------
That gives you about the most objective answer that can be obtained for what a "good" chess rating is: 1650 through 1950.
Of course there exist caveats to this statement, like that the opinion on letter grades is only an opinion, the Elo graph is more like a logistic distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_distribution) than a normal distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system), and the Elo graph is bimodal (https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2550/whats-the-average-elo-rating-whats-the-average-uscf-rating).
I dont agree with your conclutions. That sets 1650-1900 as good. I believe that 1250 Fide is good too. I know. I have played them. The active chessplayers are overrepresented by players that is actually more than average good at chess, and the 1650+ is the better part of the active ones.
I remmber my time as a cross country -skier. In the lokal races, in the 13 year ageclass I could be nr 4 out of 6. I was not impressed back then, but when looking at it in retrospect I was pretty fast and strong. If I could kept on training I would have been extremely powerful today, even if i was the backmarker. The worst competing adult skiers are extremely storng. I would like to have power like that. Now I am building power in chess. I am not superstrong, but feel that I have gained a good share of strenght already at 1400 fide.
Apr 18, 2017
0
#59
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
I dont agree with your conclutions.
Well, you're relying on your own opinion to override objective mathematics, which isn't very logical or productive for anyone. Maybe you're objecting to teachers grading tests where 1.5 standard deviations is considered "B," or "good." If that's the basis of your foundation, that's fine, but then you're trying to override the opinion of probably the majority of the teachers on the planet, which isn't wise, either. If you have such an overall objection then you should state the exact basis of it and suggest an alternative system, or maybe come up with your own vocabulary that is more specific than some general word like "good."
Apr 18, 2017
0
#60
Sqod: The average 1500 rating you use for your statistical model is among Adult OTB tournament players....since adult tournament players are just a small subset of all chess players and tend to be at the upper end of the spectrum your analysis is flawed...it is even further flawed because the standard deviation model is based on a normal bell curve when in fact the curve of chess ratings is actually skewed toward the lower end (i.e. the mode is lower than the mean). The original question was what is considered a "good" rating, if the question was "what is considered a good rating among adult OTB tournament players" your model would more closely approximate the truth, but would still be over-stated somewhat because the distribution is not normal. A good rating is more like 1500-1600 because many players would not even consider playing OTB tournament chess because they know they would get creamed every game and how much "fun" could that possibly be?
I think 1500 is good. I'd be happy to get to that number (this might not be attainable because I some other hobbies).