1000000000
What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?
Sort:
JuliusH wrote:
You can view a distribution on ratings on here (https://www.chess.com/echess/players.html). It follows pretty typical Gaussian (aka "Bell) distribution, so if "good" is considered being in the top quarter, or tenth, or whatever you can go and find it yourself. It seems average on here is centered at 1310.
That link doesn't work - but the info sounds interesting. Any better link?
i got 274 ive never played chess before
Jan 4, 2023
0
#565
dude0812 wrote:
So, wherever the dividing line is, the line above which players are good, the line has to be at least 2200. It may even be a couple of hundreds of points higher than that.
Yeah... I'm 2350 and I suck.
I think it's really a matter of perspective. If we consider other sports, let's say basketball, I consider myself a decent baller. Of course, any guy in my national league would obliterate me. But I do am a good player, when compared to the average joe.
I think there is no way to define what is good in an objective way, without using the greatest of the sport as a comparison. Then, of course, Carlsen would be "good", but any FM or even IM would just look like a beginner compared to him.
How good someone is I think is completely subjective. I am 1400 and I'm the best player among my IRL friends. Am I any "objectively" good? Not a chance, but am I a good player in the context I find myself? Of course.
If you want to be a good "chess club" player, then maybe you should aim for at least 1600/1700, if you want to be a titled player, then even higher. But the thing is, you would then be "good" in your own perspective, but not in the eyes of a Kasparov. Like in basketball, what is an objective line to define what "good" is? Shooting the ball with some degree of consistency? Having a good basketball IQ? Then again, being above the average joe would absolutely be good.
beanthere wrote:
JuliusH wrote:
You can view a distribution on ratings on here (https://www.chess.com/echess/players.html). It follows pretty typical Gaussian (aka "Bell) distribution, so if "good" is considered being in the top quarter, or tenth, or whatever you can go and find it yourself. It seems average on here is centered at 1310.
That link doesn't work - but the info sounds interesting. Any better link?
That stat is definitely out of date now, because at my current rating of 1339 I’m placed in the 93.4 percentile (a little bit higher than 50%)
that also confirms a long-time suspicion of mine that elo on chess.com has gotten harder to gain over time
1200 lands you in top 10 percent.
TheRealThreat wrote:
What is consider a good rating on the site. Well, I think if you are rated above 1800 then you are a good chess player. If you are rated 1500-1799 then you are average. What do you think?
Bro got 13 dislikes when his opinion isn't even that far off the spectrum lol. Bunch of angry kids that are like "GWRRRR I IS NOT BAD AT CHESS"
deadmemer1 wrote:
TheRealThreat wrote:
What is consider a good rating on the site. Well, I think if you are rated above 1800 then you are a good chess player. If you are rated 1500-1799 then you are average. What do you think?
Bro got 13 dislikes when his opinion isn't even that far off the spectrum lol. Bunch of angry kids that are like "GWRRRR I IS NOT BAD AT CHESS"
So I ask....what percentile must one be in to be good at chess?
Feb 3, 2023
0
#571
The average rating on this site depends on the time control. I didn’t think any standard chess average here was 1300, but I’ll look again.
EDIT:
Blitz average is 733
Bullet: 712
Rapid: 715
Daily: 932
Feb 3, 2023
0
#572
Deadmanparty wrote:
deadmemer1 wrote:
TheRealThreat wrote:
What is consider a good rating on the site. Well, I think if you are rated above 1800 then you are a good chess player. If you are rated 1500-1799 then you are average. What do you think?
Bro got 13 dislikes when his opinion isn't even that far off the spectrum lol. Bunch of angry kids that are like "GWRRRR I IS NOT BAD AT CHESS"
So I ask....what percentile must one be in to be good at chess?
Better than me would get you close.
Z,
Just goes to show good is in the eye of the beholder. To those who believe chess is more than just a game, only the top 1 percent of 1 percent are good at chess.
For the rest of us, good has a different definition.
me being 315 in rapid : wut
Feb 24, 2023
0
#575
Any rating where you enjoy the game and learning something every time... at least for me.
Feb 24, 2023
0
#576
Ziryab wrote:
Better than me would get you close.
I peaked at #45 on the list. The percentile just said "100%".
Need double-precision variables!
1000+
EntireIy subjective, but I would say that if you're better than 90% then this should be considered "good'
50-90% "reasonable"
20-50% "beginners"
Less than 20% "muppets"
Feb 27, 2023
0
#580
Redwall wrote:
2500 is quite good... The rating should be: under 1200: beginner 1200-1600 =advanced beginner 1600-2000 good tournament player 2000-2200 internationally ranked. 2200-2300 Us life master. 2300-2400 International master. 2400-2500 grand master. 2500-2600 strong grandmaster. 2700... your near world master. 2800: your Kasparov. (This rating was argued forth by Michel j. Gerb Ramond Keene in "samurai chess - mastering strategic thinking through the martial art of the mind")
ahh, stupidity at its finest. boi 1200 and below is like 92% of people on this website. 92% of people aren't "beginner". bruh.
Your percentile should give some idea how you compare to others. Does anybody knows which players are in the total ranking list? Only those who have been active within a certain time period or does it include also someone who registered and only played one game several years ago?
Only those playing games actively, none of those sleeper accounts are included.