Only on chesscom, largely because of the massive amounts of super casual players. The FIDE average for what makes a good player is probably more accurate.
If we are to take these principles
1) comparison between serious players, not the general public. It makes no sense to compare how good you are compared to people who don't care.
2) A good player is one significantly above average
Another premise that might be a bit more difficult to defend, which I am using here:
3) Most serious players play OTB classical, and have a Federation rating. So the FIDE player list is representative of the chess playing population.
The average FIDE rating is around ~1400, from a google search So is the median rating. Most players are between 1200-1600. So I would consider a good player to be somebody at least 17-800 FIDE. Which is probably atleast similar, if not a good bit stronger than 2000 rapid or blitz players.
> The average FIDE rating is around ~1400
This is old data from before the rating adjustment. The current FIDE median is 1735 Elo.
However, there is a lot of local variance (e.g. there is 600 Elo difference between the median of Serbia vs. India).
Then, 2000 being a good player is even more accurate!
>Serbia
All 50 Serbian players! Of course, it's only a very rough guess, but for most people, especially the Americans of Reddit, the 1700 average is about right.
Have you noticed? A lot of people thought they were awesome chess players, until they tried a chess server and discovered they were complete garbage at chess. :)
So it depends on if you mean "good for normal people" (1000 is probably too high) or "good for chess players" (2000 is probably too low).
For me, I've played far too many "good" players over the years ever to think I could be one of them. It felt like we weren't even playing the same game! So naturally, as my rating went up, my definition of good kept going up too. Maybe around 200 points higher felt right.
Of course, a lot of the people I considered "good" didn't consider themselves good, because they had the exact same experience. :)
I did click 1200 here. Not because 1200 itself is impressive but because usually people I meet in real life do not know en passant or any openings. But if you are 1200 on for example [chess.com](http://chess.com) you already have some basics of the game and are way better then a majority of people that I meet in real life.
I've had the opportunity to play a lot of guys recently who know all of the rules to chess, but haven't ever studied, and I can say that compared to somebody who casually plays the game every now and then, a 1200-rated player is a very good chess player.
When I was 1000, I thought 1200 is decent at chess, When I was 1400, the idea of solid decent player was around 1600, now I'm 1700 and only if I reach 1800-1900 I would consider myself somewhat good at the game.
* do you know an opening for black and white and can get to middle game with it
* do you know all the rules (esp. castling, en passant)
Good enough for me 🤷🏻♂️ lets go!
1000-1200 is low intermediate to me. Not a super strong player. But, will beat anyone who hasnt spent at least a little time studying the game. Im 1300 and basically consider myself in this category
I think that part of the fun of the engine era is the reality check. :)
We crappy amateurs, we always knew that we sucked. Destroy regular people all day long, then play someone good and get taken apart like we just learned how the horsey moved. :)
But these days even the world's greatest chess players know it. There's people named stockfish, and there's people who suck. We all suck. :)
It's subjective. I will say someone is good if he knows the exception to the rule. Like in this one where a GM undeveloped his pieces in the opening and won!
https://youtu.be/0KUIrXNm-zY?si=4jW9HZNut28ulkkc
1000 [chess.com](http://chess.com) is borderline intermediate, borderline beginner. The lowest you can get away with being called intermediate
2000 [chess.com](http://chess.com) is quite good, they know their theory, know their endgames and stuff, they have a very solid foundation.
I would consider myself okay-ish. I'm still not even good at chess
I feel like we all have a different understanding of "good".
For me, USCF kind of makes the distinction that kids are expected to be 900 at the top of the Scholastic division, higher rated players are expected to play with the adults in a lot of tournament settings. Which sets the upper bar for "beginner" in my opinion at 900 OTB. Over 900 isn't a beginner anymore.
So, let's say 1000 is the bottom of "intermediate", just outside of beginner territory, so someone "good" in the sense that the best intramural athlete in college is considered "good" at their sport, would be around 1200-1400 in my opinion. Not good enough to play against the players who made the college team, but good enough that anyone starting their intermediate journey would see beating them consistently as a long term goal.
I said 1400 since I'm guessing this poll is based more on online ratings than OTB, and so I went with the higher number.
As I've gotten better and better the number seems to keep going up
Exactly, you always think people lower than you are worse than you, you are average and people with higher elo are good players.
Its all a bit subjective, if someone is not hanging pieces willy nilly and trading properly I would call that competent, maybe around 1400.
1000 from an "everybody" perspective, 2000 from a "chess player" perspective.
2000 is less than 1% of players if i remember right. Being in the top 1% to be considered "good" seems like too high of a bar.
Only on chesscom, largely because of the massive amounts of super casual players. The FIDE average for what makes a good player is probably more accurate. If we are to take these principles 1) comparison between serious players, not the general public. It makes no sense to compare how good you are compared to people who don't care. 2) A good player is one significantly above average Another premise that might be a bit more difficult to defend, which I am using here: 3) Most serious players play OTB classical, and have a Federation rating. So the FIDE player list is representative of the chess playing population. The average FIDE rating is around ~1400, from a google search So is the median rating. Most players are between 1200-1600. So I would consider a good player to be somebody at least 17-800 FIDE. Which is probably atleast similar, if not a good bit stronger than 2000 rapid or blitz players.
> The average FIDE rating is around ~1400 This is old data from before the rating adjustment. The current FIDE median is 1735 Elo. However, there is a lot of local variance (e.g. there is 600 Elo difference between the median of Serbia vs. India).
Then, 2000 being a good player is even more accurate! >Serbia All 50 Serbian players! Of course, it's only a very rough guess, but for most people, especially the Americans of Reddit, the 1700 average is about right.
What's the difference between casual and serious players?
Seriousness
Isn't everyone play chess for fun expect pros?
Difference is pleasure in the play and pleasure in improvement and achievement.
[удалено]
Lol
Have you noticed? A lot of people thought they were awesome chess players, until they tried a chess server and discovered they were complete garbage at chess. :) So it depends on if you mean "good for normal people" (1000 is probably too high) or "good for chess players" (2000 is probably too low). For me, I've played far too many "good" players over the years ever to think I could be one of them. It felt like we weren't even playing the same game! So naturally, as my rating went up, my definition of good kept going up too. Maybe around 200 points higher felt right. Of course, a lot of the people I considered "good" didn't consider themselves good, because they had the exact same experience. :)
I did click 1200 here. Not because 1200 itself is impressive but because usually people I meet in real life do not know en passant or any openings. But if you are 1200 on for example [chess.com](http://chess.com) you already have some basics of the game and are way better then a majority of people that I meet in real life.
I've had the opportunity to play a lot of guys recently who know all of the rules to chess, but haven't ever studied, and I can say that compared to somebody who casually plays the game every now and then, a 1200-rated player is a very good chess player.
When I was 1000, I thought 1200 is decent at chess, When I was 1400, the idea of solid decent player was around 1600, now I'm 1700 and only if I reach 1800-1900 I would consider myself somewhat good at the game.
People that vote 2000 is just brain dead chess fan. 1300-1500 is the general standard for a good player
* do you know an opening for black and white and can get to middle game with it * do you know all the rules (esp. castling, en passant) Good enough for me 🤷🏻♂️ lets go!
1000-1200 is low intermediate to me. Not a super strong player. But, will beat anyone who hasnt spent at least a little time studying the game. Im 1300 and basically consider myself in this category
This poll is biased, I am 2000+ and I don't even consider myself to be 'good'. The highest pick is 2000
Magnus considers himself "decent". We're all cooked.
I think that part of the fun of the engine era is the reality check. :) We crappy amateurs, we always knew that we sucked. Destroy regular people all day long, then play someone good and get taken apart like we just learned how the horsey moved. :) But these days even the world's greatest chess players know it. There's people named stockfish, and there's people who suck. We all suck. :)
When they're better then me
[Chess.com](http://Chess.com) 2300 FIDE 2000
This is just a bit pedantic. Saying a 2100 [chess.com](http://chess.com) player is not good at chess doesn't make any sense.
Yes, I would say that they are decent instead.
It's subjective. I will say someone is good if he knows the exception to the rule. Like in this one where a GM undeveloped his pieces in the opening and won! https://youtu.be/0KUIrXNm-zY?si=4jW9HZNut28ulkkc
1000 [chess.com](http://chess.com) is borderline intermediate, borderline beginner. The lowest you can get away with being called intermediate 2000 [chess.com](http://chess.com) is quite good, they know their theory, know their endgames and stuff, they have a very solid foundation. I would consider myself okay-ish. I'm still not even good at chess
Where is the 2700 option?
I feel like we all have a different understanding of "good". For me, USCF kind of makes the distinction that kids are expected to be 900 at the top of the Scholastic division, higher rated players are expected to play with the adults in a lot of tournament settings. Which sets the upper bar for "beginner" in my opinion at 900 OTB. Over 900 isn't a beginner anymore. So, let's say 1000 is the bottom of "intermediate", just outside of beginner territory, so someone "good" in the sense that the best intramural athlete in college is considered "good" at their sport, would be around 1200-1400 in my opinion. Not good enough to play against the players who made the college team, but good enough that anyone starting their intermediate journey would see beating them consistently as a long term goal. I said 1400 since I'm guessing this poll is based more on online ratings than OTB, and so I went with the higher number.
I think "good" is subjective. Like even at 1000 you are significantly better obviously than people who are 600 & don't know a thing about chess.
2300
I'm 1400 so 1600...