What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?

A good rating is one which you yourself feel represents the best you can achieve ... Me I follow "You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." Albert Einstein

Problem: I have ocercome the first challenfe but oscilate around 1350 and guess  will never achieve the second ... but its still a buzz when I beat someone 100 points higher than me and a downer when someone 100 pounts worse than me .. play and enjoy 

Pink elephants love to eat stockfish for breakfast. That's my 2 cents

1600 is the average rating I believe

No, the average ratings for this site according to their own stats are:

CC: 1325

Bullet: 1146

Blitz: 1096

Std: 1290

You can see the stats if you click  Play  >> Live Chess then go down to "View Players" 

Hehehe! An "acceptable" rating is whatever my rating is +100! 

This sounds right to me. 

A lof folks here don't realize that there's a big discrepancy is the ratings, particular in that blitz ratings here are def under-rated compared to the others. Play a 1200 blitz here and he'll be wayyy stronger than a 1200 slow-move player, and def as strong as a USCF 1400 OTB. (When I was 1450 USCF tournament play, I was probably as strong as a 1100 blitz player here on chess.com)

I thought I was a pretty good player most of my life because I could beat my friends, most casual players I came across, and I could beat my older brothers who started teaching me the rules of chess at the very young age of 3yrs old.

This took me through most of my life as a fairly strong non-studied player. I could beat almost anyone I had ever played. I even came across a self-proclaimed Life Master (personally, he came across more as just a pot-head to me....lol) in my mid 20s who I managed to gain a draw with after losing to him about 15 games in a row.  He was impressed with my non-educated play, in that because I had never studied a chess book or any openings, middle or end game literature.

Anyway, this life master convinced me that I should start playing with a chess group that played at UW Madison. I went and joined their group and lost my first 9 tournament games in a row to players ranging anywhere from 1400-2000. I had no idea what the numbers even meant. It was an extremely humbling experience that made me realize how little I actually knew about chess.  I do remember getting my first USCF rating from it and was surprised to see it was 1500; even though I hadn't won a single game. This makes me realize that without book knowledge a 1500 rating is achievable. Anything above that seems to take study.

25 years later, and the occasional study of things like the e4 and d4 openings, as well as tactics and strategies, my rating has jumped a whole 200 points to 1700. Yeah, not so good. haha!  Chess takes a lot of commiment I never seemed to be able to completely commit an extended amount of time too. But I still love to play, and I guess I will have to be content as just 1700 rated player. :)

Why restart this thread. There's too much autism here. Just play and chill.

I always thought good was 1600-1700.

anywhere above 1800 to me is good enough.

That's because there is a parenthesis at the end of the url.

http://www.chess.com/echess/players

My two cents (from a poor country) , for what it's worth.  I have been an FM for 20+ years and played in Olympiads (for a very weak country) and even won a gold medal at an Asian team event (board 2).  However, I gave up serious chess 18 years ago (work etc)   until I become addicted to this site.  I only ever play 5min (blitz, I guess).  Trouble is, I only ever play after a few (or more!) drinks and my openings are truly horrible.  However,  the few I know, I know well so maybe not so much!  And I am very fast and my endings are very good.  Tactics, not so much! I finally cracked 2000! Is that good.  Not sure.  I am, at least 18 years, past my best and there is the alcohol but I feel i can still play so  - pure speculation - that  2000 is equivalent to, at least 2200+ Elo (remember, I am only talking blitz). 

I win 47%, lose 41%, draw 12%. Identical for white and black.  So, and again this is pure surmise,  I would say if you make a leap in ranking after playing many (1000s) games, then it means something. 

I actually find it easier to play someone of a similar rating because I have some idea what he or she is going to do!

One moan: I loathe people who play do-nothing openings with white (d4, Nf3 etc) and rely on their opponents to play chess.  I should do do nothing back and do it more quickly but . . .

I know what you're saying, but the best player in the world is now playing "do-nothing openings" with White. He obviously wants his opponents to think for themselves where he has an unfair advantage!

Well my rating OTB fluctuates between 1800 and 1930 over the last 6 months. My standard rating here is usually around 1600, and my blitz rating is around 1550-1620. Bullet is a lost cause for me. If I reach 1800 blitz or standard on chess.com I'll probably be a 2000 player by then.

I think using this standard, I'm a bad chess player. I'm going to stop playing chess. Whats the point of playing if you are bad? 

Ur ratings wont save you idiots, just play like hell and give evry one the death they deserves BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Im 944. is that good?

No. I have good ratings, except at bullet, but I'm not very good at chess.

I miss Nurse Ratchet.