What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?

Hi ameraljic   -   I am an above average player,  my rating is generally between 1400 and 1500.

                           Good luck in all your games...

It's pretty interesting that majority of people posting on this thread consider good to be around the rating that they're at. If we consider chess as a board game that almost everyone on this planet know the rules to (and almost nothing else about it), being a 1000+ rating would probably be enough to never lose to anyone who doesn't actively play. Then again on chess sites 1000 rating is pretty low. With around 1400-1600 you're already on the 90th percentile on most game modes. So I guess being in the top 10 percent of players could be considered good in general.

Of course 1400-1600s are patzers to 1800s, just like 1800s are to 2000s. There are always players stronger than you (unless you're Carlsen) and "good" as a measure is relative. But since the question was on this site, I think 2000+ is a good rating. If we consider your ability to play one board game of many, being 1000+ is good enough for many to be considered "good at playing chess".

Over 9000 is a good rating

Alpha Zero's rating is over 9000

here is my answer:

under 1200  novice

1200-1500 : beginner player

1500-1800 : good player

1800-2200 : expert player

2200-2500 : master player

above 2500: world champion

I am 1100, and i may never play again.

Sometimes I play well, but it is not yet rote.

It is grasp of the obvious.

This is a good dose of humility.  I am proud to get my score over 1000.  Guess I need to raise my standards.  None of my friends can beat me but that's probably because they aren't chess players.  Need to step it up!

With my last two rated games (in September and October) I've finally reached a decent rating. 

Maybe I should retire...

I think that is rough. If you are at 1500 on this site, then you are at around the 85% percentile or something like that. And that is among people actually registrered at this site, not including the vast amounts of the general public who have played chess a few times here and there. I am currently hovering around 1400 here, which is at the 80% percentile of users here. Wouldn't it be considered "good" to be amongst the best 20% of registrered users? While I would appear to be a pretty bad player to someone rated 1800, I would probably easily beat 99/100 of the general population.

That's about right in terms of competitive playing.  A 1200 rating OTB is traditionally the level at which a player is considered to have mastered the basic skills.  That's probably about the same here.

Problem with answers on this site is that people that answer are generally chess devotees, so the answers are skewed way too high. If you are asking this question, you are probably a beginning player trying to understand where you fit in. If you are 1500+ you know exactly how good/bad you are. Don't be a troll. So you have to make a distinction between competitive players and casual players.  The average on this site is around 1180. (For chess.com - as of 4/5/2019 - Players 780,492 - Avg Rating: 1181.55 - Avg Glicko RD 112.09. ) I would say in the USA, where most people are not chess players, the average beginner is 800-1150. Intermediate players (typically have played a good amount but never studied the game) are 1150-1400. At 1400, you will beat almost any casual adult player. Advanced and good tournament players 1400-1700. 1700+ is really, really good and takes significant dedication. 2000+ is elite. Most master players and above will tell you that it takes thousands of hours of study and play to reach 2000+. There are probably less than 2500 players in the USA with that rating in all age groups). 

Yeah, I mean even 1000s and possibly 600-800s on this site could still easily beat most people they encounter, but are considered beginners or lower by official ranking

A good chess rating is always 100 points higher than my peak.

ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY AS LONG AS IT'S ON PAGE ONE AND THEY SPELL YOUR NAME RIGHT.

YOU HAVE SOME CHICKEN, AND YOU HAVE A LOT OF CHICKEN FEATHERS, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CHICKEN TO MAKE A CHICKEN SALAD.  BRING ME THE REST OF THE CHICKEN, AND I'LL HELP YOU MAKE THE SALAD!

Just a little cranky today.

I'd say you need to be 2000+ as the bottom to be a decent player. I've seen games on here between 1500 and 1699 rayed players that would ba laughabe for a USCF player above 1200.

Part of the issue is there are quite a few players that will keep bumping up thier rating by just playing weaker players.

There is little chance of doing that all the way to 2000. I'm undecided about the 1700 to 1999 crowd, but those players do have know some decent knowlege to stay in that range. Over 2000 and your going to know some chess theory and apply it against similar rated players, not to mention  a good amount tactical and pattern knowlege.

2872 is a decent rating.

For this site? I'd say 60th percentile.

For actually being a good chess player, 1700 in rapid?