I think Im good enough at flagging and my last rated games were all crap by my opponents, they got lucky I mousesliped with my mouse, so I guess I should be at 1900+ range, maybe 1940~ to be kind of exact.
Really tho, I dont care about monopoly money lol.
A couple of days ago I threw away a clear advantage against a NM, but then won on time. See http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2017/01/blowing-ending.html
Those mouslips, blunders and flags which are painful are what give its beauty to internet chess!
I have never played against titled players on blitz 
only against a weird FM which played unrated, went for a draw on move 22 and blocked me, LOL.
I have played blitz against a decent number of NMs and a couple of CMs. Also one low rated FM who was 1800. I have beaten a few of them but I am always unsure of what I should be doing. Should I play crazy like I normally do or should I try to play more accurate moves? Even if they are not as good as they should be at blitz, they are still titled so their knowledge about any chess position should far surpass mine.
I have never played against titled players on blitz only against a weird FM which played unrated, went for a draw on move 22 and blocked me, LOL.
You should play more. I run into NMs every week or two and seem to win about once a month (at least in the past year). Many of those wins, however, are on time in lost positions. I outplayed one NM several months ago and was then blocked by him. He eventually removed the block and we're now friends. He hasn't asked for the rematch, yet.
LOL, amazingly a lot of titled players are weird cry babies. Ill play blitz on weekends, some fun cant be bad, right?
everybody is like 2000 is rubbish.
I guess that makes me pretty freakn low- spacially in the blitz.
"hello, my favorite hobby is chess. I'm on chess.com incessantly- constantly attending tournaments and talking to a chess coach.
but I am beyond and hopelessly awful and terrible at it. even people that beat me drunk and half awake- are rubbish.
please give me a beer, a gun or a pychiatrist"
(just sayin')
I dont see what is the problem with being "freakn low" tho, the value of a human being is determined on physical abilities according to Romans.
Honestly I think everyone starts out thinking they're really good at chess... and the better they get the more they realize they actually suck. At least that's the case for me, the more I learn, the more I realize the things I miss and how bad my level of play really is.
1700-2200 is respectable chess rating for sure.. but if we're talking about good chess... they play terribly.
@SWED420BLAZEIT - Totally agree. The more I progress with the game the more I realize how badly I play and how amazingly hard chess truly is. Still for me I like the challenge of the thing so as long as I keep making incremental improvements I find it engaging and rewarding.
Which brings me to the title of the thread: It's like asking how long a piece of string should be. Only the relative rating of the opponents matters. I think low rated players blundering their way to a win is as good a game as any - for the people involved that is.
so would you be considered hopeless if you were a 700?
Live rating - 600 = real OTB rating.
So you'd be a 100 rated player. That's not bad if you just learned chess though.
(just kidding - you're still a total beginner though, but everyone starts somewhere)
Against titled players, as far as I can remember, I'm 1-1 against FM NoWuss2 in 3+2 blitz 960, 3-3 against NM Samuraichessman in 1+0 bullet, and 1-0 against Falzehope in 1+0 bullet.
I've also played against titled players in variants that aren't 960 (which is still real chess), but don't remember.
...I'm definitely 200 points better than my blitz rating.in fact, with effort I brought up my blitz to my uscf a little while ago....
so in 700 blitz; your likely a 700 player , maybe ±200.
lol I added the "just kidding" because I didn't want to mislead someone who might actually take it seriously. The correlation is very weak at best.
Over 9000!
In agreement with the first post(OP) made a decade ago.
1800-2000 is good.
I'll repeat:
200 points higher than your best rating is a good rating, unless you're already +2800.
To me, a player with a rating of about 1700-1800 is good. I hover somewhere between 1500-1600 constantly and wouldn't call myself a good player, really
What I wrote 4 yrs ago. I stopped playing chess somewhere around then and picked it up 2 months ago again - Now I’m roughly 1900!
so apparently now I’m a very good player
I think Im good enough at flagging and my last rated games were all crap by my opponents, they got lucky I mousesliped with my mouse, so I guess I should be at 1900+ range, maybe 1940~ to be kind of exact.
Really tho, I dont care about monopoly money lol.