Winning percentage goals of chess players

I've been getting philosophical lately about people's reactions to winning and losing, whether in Chess or other games or sports (i.e., football, baseball, etc.).

Naturally, everybody loves to win games. Often times, the more we care about the game, the more we want to win.

I see a lot of chess players be really hard on themselves when they lose, even if only just one game. Some take losses harder than others.

Chess is a competitive game. It is not like, say, a video game, or a puzzle book.

Video games, crossword puzzles, logic problems, chess, baseball, and football all have the common requirement of practice in order for one to gain more skill in them. But video games and puzzles are examples of things that, with enough practice, one should be able to win (or solve) fairly consistently.

Chess, baseball, football, and other sports, however, pit one human entity against another. In these games, one cannot necessarily expect to win fairly consistently simply by practicing, because one's opponent is not constant or insentient--the opponent can practice, too.

Getting good enough at a video game may enable someone to beat it between 90 and 100% of the time, depending on the game. But if two people approximately equally skilled in chess play a series of games, each can be expected to win about 50% of the time--and lose about 50% of the time. Yet I see some people hold themselves to the same standard as if they were playing a video game. They seem to view chess as something they should eventually be able to master and win consistently--80, 90, or 100%. As a result, they set themselves up for disappointment and frustration.

Food for thought: a Major League Baseball team that wins 60% of its games over the course of a season is considered to be quite good and, generally, playoff-caliber. An MLB team that wins 70% of its games is considered exceptionally good and even record-setting. These numbers would be considered somewhat weaker by NFL teams. An NFL team that wins 60% of its games would probably be about 10-6, which is not bad, but perhaps not worthy of a Super Bowl appearance. Seventy percent (11-5) is only slightly better. Clearly, the threshold of adequacy depends on the game, among other things.

So I ask: what winning percentage, in your opinion, might be a good goal for a chess player? Is 50% good enough? Should he aim for 60 or 70%? Or is 40% or even lower acceptable?

Whirlwind, I don't think there's one correct answer to your question (this may be why there haven't been any responses yet).

There will surely be some that might look at their winning percentage as a "badge of honor" and they will always try to make it higher.

I know a couple of players here that like to be one of the lower rated when joining a tournament. They prefer to play stronger players. So, their winning % will not be high.

My guess is that most players don't really care what their winning % is. Those that put a lot of effort into chess know that they can learn from a loss, and are probably not going to play those rated well below them.

If you're winning too much it simply mean you're playing against weaker players. There's no point really.

And the OP knows nothing about videogames. Clan matches over the internet are pretty competitive.

He makes a good point though.

@AlCzervik: Thanks for your response!  I didn't mind that nobody responded right away. I knew that somebody would probably comment eventually, and if not, that would have been fine as well.

My question does not have a single correct answer, which is precisely why I asked it. I was curious about people's various opinions thereon.

Some people do care about winning percentage, so they may desire a high percentage. (How great lengths they'll go in order to obtain that percentage is a slightly different topic.) Others want a challenge, so they will be content with a low winning percentage.

How about it, folks? If you have any thoughts on the subject, share them here!

If you read some of my blog entries, you would know that I am actually quite familiar with video games. I was referring to single-player games, such as old classics like Mega Man and Montezuma's Revenge. Multi-player games, like Halo and Counter-Strike, definitely are much more competitive.

Videogames not competitive? some videogames are very competitive.

Last time I checked the league of legends world championship, they had millions of prize money, over 200K viewers, they even have an elo rating. The most popular competitive videogames are easily more popular than chess.

The more you know.

And ofcourse before going on my little rant I should have read that this was allready mentioned

@Vivinski: Indeed. And once again, I was referring to games that pit one player against insentient, unchanging artificial intelligence, and not those that have players playing against each other, which are competitive by definition.

I think 60-65% should be just right.  

Far higher than that implies that you are not playing "up" enough (you big bully!) and far lower than that implies you are getting whipped way too much to be learning anything significant.

Chess should always be fun ... and winning helps. You want to get beaten often enough to get better by learning from your mistakes as well as be able to apply your "corrective" chess behaviors and things you've learned from past losses and win a few :) 

I think swinging the pendum 10% above 50 just keeps you engaged + happy enough to keep coming back.  40% feels may feel a little too depressing, IMHO.

As your skill improves and so does this percentage (assuming your field of opposition e.g. rating ranges stays constant) , you ought to then seek out stronger opposition until this normalizes back to this sweet spot.

anything ove 50%, assuming youre not sandbagging is good. anything above 70% is extremely good. 

as for video games, who cares if theres online, that wasnt the point. 

The fact that a LoL tournament had a large prize pool and more viewers than the chess world championship is sad to say the least 

It's sad for chess not for LoL :P

As long as I Hit 400 wins before 200 defeats I'll be happy.

@Shivsky: Thanks for your thoughts! I completely agree.

I wasn't necessarily referring to myself in the original question, but to chess players in general, as given in the title of the thread. But out of curiosity, I just looked up my own winning percentage in Online Chess, and it is awfully high--almost 82%! Still, that number has been declining steadily for many months now, and it will continue to fall, because I have always had all my opponents chosen randomly by the site, never seeking higher-rated or lower-rated players, but only those given to me. It is well on its way to regulation.

@Beckyschess: I completely agree with you as well. The variety of opinions and perspectives is fascinating. And I would do my best to avoid looking foolish to basically any titled player!

@VanillaKnightPOC: So about 67% is your goal. Nice! The bar is set high, yet the goal is not unattainable.

Enough to stay interested while playing superior opposition: 40-45%.

Good for the student aiming to be a better player.

Are you stating there is no superior opposition to you here?

its just sad in general

67% not counting draws. 

You can't compare them 1:1, because for chess you only need 2 players a board and pieces and maybe a clock.

For videogames, you need a platform (pc or console) the game itself, good internet connection and at least 2 players.

I think it's safe to say that videogames as a whole are more popular than board games as a whole. I'd say that in Korea, starcraft is much more popular than chess.

Seeing that games are the biggest media entertainment branche in the world, outselling music and films, I think your perception might be slightly off

     Obviously your winning % depends on the strength of the opposition.  Here on chess.com we have an unlimited supply of opponents with varying ability, so we can arrange to have stronger or weaker opponents.  I play in team matches where my opponents are roughly equal to my strength and I score about 50% which is what you'd expect.  My old chess club (1960's)had about 15 members and your winning % largely depended on your place in the pecking order.  

     Beginners need to experience a few wins or they may become discouraged.  I remember one beginner, Bill, who played tournament after tournament losing most of his games.  Then one day Bill defeated a 1800 player and he thought that his opponent had thrown the game.  The truth was, he was no longer a beginner.

     You win some, you lose some.  

My answer to your question.  The percentage should be taken relative to yourself only.  That is, if you are currently at 50%, then you can go for 60% as a goal.  In the same way if someone is at 40% may go for 50% as a goal.  In this way it is relative to your own progress.  What is not relative is your actual rank which compares you in a solid way versus other players.  Cheers.

Assasin's creed is not a mp game.

I simply disagree with you. Yes the whole world does play videogames. Let's not even delve into the casual gaming market that came with smartphones.

EVERYBODY I know plays games, my dad plays wordfeud and ruzzle, even my atechnical mom who's 56 years old plays games on her smarthphone.

You're also not gaining any valuable experience or knowledge from playing chess, because guess what, chess is.... a game.

I KNOW that people will care about videogames in 5-10 years,
And like I said, I think more people now care about videogames than chess.

The League of Legends Season Two prize pool will feature a record setting $5 million prize pool! That's more than the chess world championship prize pool, and that's ONE game that you can play, for free.

If you think being good at chess is somehow 'better' than being good at counter strike, Halo, LoL, starcraft, or CoD, than that spells elitism to me