What Playing Level is Respectable?

Some of you people don't seem to understand that there is a difference between online rating and OTB ratings. There is a huge difference. I am rated around 1800 on this website, but in OTB chess, I am lucky if I'm around 1600. So what do you mean when you are throwing numbers around like, It is respectable when you are rated 1800 or 2100.Do you mean OTB ratings? Like FIDE or USCF? Or do you mean the online rating like 1800 at chess.com is respectable.

on this site.... i think anything below 1650 is nothing to write home about.

1625-1650+ AND NOT DIPPING BELOW is respectable/good.

1900+ is really very good.

When I was playing in tournaments I learned the average rating of a tournament player (in the US ) was 1650. I would use that as a measuring stick. The further above that number you go the more sound your chess principles. And yes, my answer only applies to OTB, which  is COMPLETELY different than playing chess here or any site where you can set the parameters of who you play and the time controls. If you want to gauge yourself play "Live" chess rather than this one move a day "Online" stuff, which will never give you an accurate measure of your OTB skills.

Interesting that some players say 2100. I think that a 2100 player might know some things about tactics, perhaps also a bit about strategy, but the moves of Petrosian will be a secret for them. And Petrosian will have some difficulties with moves from Rybca and so on...

So I think that the best answer to this question is 200 points higher than your own rating.

I'm 1487 USCF, and there's a master in my club who I am beginning to hang with. We can have an intelligent conversation about chess. Not sure if that means anything to you, but it is what it is.

Define the term 'understand Chess'.  It's an impossible question to answer without this definition.

You say you went to 1600 in 6 months. At this rate, in 6 months more, we should be asking you this question

But seriously, OTB is different from online. Too many people use software help and similar assiatance to win. So if you can pull off a good percentage of wins online without using software assistance, that is worthy of a lot of respect,  regardless of your actual chess rating, if nothing else, for the simple fact that you are a honorable person.

I think 2000+ USCF/FIDE is respectable, though people with rating 1800+ understand something about chess too. To say that only 2600+ or 2700+ players are respectable is ridiculous, Korchnoi's rating is 2552, he is still playing at 78, so he is not respectable, he doesn't understand chess? 

Current rating: 1867.

I think 2200 is respectable, but of course, if I reach that rating, my expectations would be set higher. It's funny 'cause I remember when I used to be around 700, *when i was still a little kid*, I used to think that 1500 players were so good. But once I reached 1500, it was no big deal.

I think there are so many ways to play chess that while your own method may become fully developed and you may be able to achieve things with it, you will always be grasping for new concepts and vantage points.  Bobby Fischer once said of Alekhine that he didn't care for the way he played, and while it worked for him it could never work for anyone else.  Fischer was an incredibly decisive player but Alekhine had that sort of mysticism where he was always cutting edge; each of them powerful players in their own right.  Of course, though Alekhine took the title from Capablanca, when they were retired, the few games they did play, Fine says Capablanca beat Alekhine mercilessly (which is perhaps part of why some regard Capablanca as the greatest player of all time), so pure superiority is also essentially non-existent.  To answer the question simply, I believe that securing a solid rating above 2000 says a lot.

Definitley not these online ratings! OTB, or real rating. My online rating is about 2000 but my uscf is like 1500 (although I haven't played enough of otb for my uscf to be accurate enough, so it's probably higher in reality)

I didn't say that.  I said I beat players in the 1500's and 1600's often enough to feel there is no mystery to their insight on the board...which is only to demonstrate the difference between how potent I thought such a rating was initially.  I get giddy when I beat someone 1800!  Also, I should point out...I'm talking about online/live chess.  I'll try to get to my first otb tournament sometime this year...

Well here's the thing... there are 1300's here on chess.com who I believe have a respectable understanding of the game.  On the other hand I've played 2000's here on the site that just don't 'get it'.  My chess.com rating is just shy of 2200 (albiet a bit inflated) and I'd like to think I know what's going on in most positions but of course if I didn't miss things my rating would be much higher, right?

Maybe a good measure is this: when you get to the point where you can consistently judge whether there is likely to be tactics in a particular position without actually calculating (and I suppose Silman explained this beautifully in reasess your chess) you have a respectable understanding of the game.  You start to get good when you know where to go from there! :).

Oh and if you want a number I'd say it's usually about 1800.

i am mad about chess, i play it obout two-three hours a day, and also learn theory alone from the books. Here on chess com i have +2000 i I fell i know nothing abot the game.  

2000 gets my respect

I'd say that we should look at the distribution, if we want to give an accurate answer.

It is available on this site, btw.

Roughly,

1600+ are about 10%,

1800+ would be ~3%,

2000+ less than 1%

2700 single individuals.

So if you play chess with a stranger, you should consider yourself strong starting from 1600-1700.

An average person, assuming he/she knowns chess, plays at a strength of 1100-1200 (distribution mean). That's why the default rating starts at 1200.

seriously...I've noticed a difference between live and online chess ratings too.why does this huge difference exist?

I'm not sure rating is the right indicator. If you play like I do it is quite sporadic in which one game I will play flawlessly and beat an opponent with a much higher rating then I and the next game I will hang pieces that I should have seen. Once you become consistent at checking, rechecking, and checking again every possible move and combination then I think you have a pretty good grasp of the game. That said even the highest level player is going to learn something new every once in a while.

You can't really judge how much to respect a chess player from their rating, because it fluxuates. To me, a well-respected chess player is one who has spent a significant amount of time (i.e. at least 10,000 hours) studying the game. That player is going to be an expert on chess, just like a person who studies physics for 10,000 hours will be an expert on physics. You have to dedicate a good portion of your life to the subject to be respected for it.

This is an interesting topic, I've thought about this subject a lot.

I think that anything below 1800 OTB, its just a blunder festival basically. The players have not mastered the basic tactics that any computer or strong player could find. The player might know SOME tactics, some openings, and a few positional ideas, but nothing special. All these games are won on blunders...

As you rise between the 1850-2000 OTB range, the players are now starting to capitalize on all your basic mistakes, so give this player a tactic and he will find it. He knows how to convert a positional advantage into a win as well. He knows a lot of opening theory.

2100 and beyond, the strength gets really magnified, and we are now talking master level..

So it depends what you respect... I tend to respect anyone over 1900 personally..