Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 21 Sep '08 20:51
    I remember when I was a young and a USCF class E chess player, I used to view Class A players as semi-chess gods. These were the serious players, I thought, the ones who are really good

    Even now, I believe that the most basic classification for a "good" player is Class A (USCF 1800-1999), or maybe expert (USCF 2000-2199).

    What do you consider the minimum threshold for a "good" player?
  2. 21 Sep '08 20:55
    We've had this discussion before and it is very very objective. I assume you mean good among the "weekend warrior" and better style chess player (aka not including the unwashed masses who have never studied the game). I think 2000 FIDE is a good measuring stick. Right now I am still trying to hit 1700 USCF (playing in a tournament would help).
  3. 21 Sep '08 21:04
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    I remember when I was a young and a USCF class E chess player, I used to view Class A players as semi-chess gods. These were the serious players, I thought, the ones who are really good

    Even now, I believe that the most basic classification for a "good" player is Class A (USCF 1800-1999), or maybe expert (USCF 2000-2199).

    What do you consider the minimum threshold for a "good" player?
    Well, I've heard several GMs quoted as saying (including one talking to a friend of mine) that they considered 2300+ to be starting to play the game the way it was supposed to be played.

    I think this is a matter of perspective, although I sort of agree with you. Back when I was playing (I used to be rated between 2050 and 2100 USCF), I used to put a dividing line at about 1800 for "solid" players, and somewhere above 2400 for people whose play was clearly beyond me (i.e. would regularly do thing I didn't understand/predict). It may not be an accident that these were about +/- 300 of my rating, though.
  4. 21 Sep '08 21:22 / 2 edits
    Class B is already a good player in the context of OTB chess. However, if you consider the entire chess population, OTB Class E is already much better than average and could be considered good. It all depends on the comparison pool. Obviously, compared to GMs, even Class A players ( stronger than 90%+ of OTB players) look like patzers.
  5. 21 Sep '08 21:35 / 1 edit
    A player is good if s/he beats you at least 60% of the time.
  6. Standard member randolph
    the walrus
    21 Sep '08 21:37
    Originally posted by Erekose
    Well, I've heard several GMs quoted as saying (including one talking to a friend of mine) that they considered 2300+ to be starting to play the game the way it was supposed to be played.

    I think this is a matter of perspective, although I sort of agree with you. Back when I was playing (I used to be rated between 2050 and 2100 USCF), I used to put a di ...[text shortened]... and/predict). It may not be an accident that these were about +/- 300 of my rating, though.
    I think Kramnik was quoted as saying that for a player to follow high-level chess, they had to be at least 1800.
  7. 21 Sep '08 21:43
    When I first started playing I used to aspire to be a 1500. Then the 1800s looked like the upper limit for me. Now I am 2000 I think of 2200+ players as the limiting factor to my play, but I am happy enough sticking around my own level without having to learn loads and loads more to get that much better (and also have to face more engines)
  8. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    21 Sep '08 22:06
    to me it's more about the craft than the rating. about understanding every aspect of the craft relatively well. -mastering all those same aspects would in turn make you a master.

    obviously that means I'm not good. not even close. I can't think of a single aspect of chess which I understood well. even in tactics I'm only halfway where the masters are, which sort of makes me only mediocre. there's as much ground left than I've covered so far. -and the rest of my chess drags far behind that.

    at the same time, some old senile master sliding down in the 1800s most definitely is good. he knows every aspect of chess well, even though he might not be able to perform very well. and some young tactical monster might be far beyond me, but still know some aspects of chess quite badly. -it's not about ratings, it's about craft.
  9. 21 Sep '08 22:26
    I once read in Mad Magazine that OLD is anyone 15 years older than you so maybe GOOD is ...

    Win Expectancy = 1 / (10^((OpponentRating-YourRating)/400)+1)

    0 0.50
    25 0.54
    50 0.57
    75 0.61
    100 0.64
    125 0.67
    150 0.70
    175 0.73
    200 0.76
    225 0.79
    250 0.81
    275 0.83
    300 0.85
    325 0.87
    350 0.88
    375 0.90
    400 0.91
    425 0.92
    450 0.93
    475 0.94
    500 0.95
  10. 21 Sep '08 22:27
    Originally posted by wormwood
    to me it's more about the craft than the rating. about understanding every aspect of the craft relatively well. -mastering all those same aspects would in turn make you a master.

    obviously that means I'm not good. not even close. I can't think of a single aspect of chess which I understood well. even in tactics I'm only halfway where the masters are, whi ...[text shortened]... still know some aspects of chess quite badly. -it's not about ratings, it's about craft.
    Comparing yourself to a master is bound to bring disappointment but that doesn't mean you're not good.

    Moreover, while I too try to understand as much of chess as possible, I do so in the hope that it will eventually contribute to strength as reflected in OTB rating. From experience, I've noticed that even farfetched chess studies will mysteriously crystallize into a better understanding as well as performance. However, if it does not, I can accept that I am not a better player and it was purely for entertainment or curiosity. Similarly, a master who is now 1800 is just nowhere near as strong as he was. Understanding without performance is meaningless and some may claim it doesn't exist at all.

    BTW: I'm not attacking you but just wanted to comment because I thought it was interesting.
  11. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    21 Sep '08 22:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by exigentsky
    Comparing yourself to a master is bound to bring disappointment but that doesn't mean you're not good.

    Moreover, while I too try to understand as much of chess as possible, I do so in the hope that it will eventually contribute to strength as reflected in OTB rating. From experience, I've noticed that even farfetched chess studies will mysteriously cr BTW: I'm not attacking you but just wanted to comment because I thought it was interesting.
    it's not disappointing (at least to me), it's just realistic. and I just can't bring myself to say that a 'halfway there' skill was 'good' in any context, no matter how many people were even worse.

    and that old master can still convey his knowledge, teach others. he doesn't guess what 'might work' like we do, he already knows what works. he does have IT even though his mind might be a bit slower.

    an old martial arts guru is still a guru, even though the youngsters could no doubt kick his ass without breaking a sweat, right?
  12. 22 Sep '08 00:40
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    I remember when I was a young and a USCF class E chess player, I used to view Class A players as semi-chess gods. These were the serious players, I thought, the ones who are really good

    Even now, I believe that the most basic classification for a "good" player is Class A (USCF 1800-1999), or maybe expert (USCF 2000-2199).

    What do you consider the minimum threshold for a "good" player?
    I believe you're dead on with considering an A rated player "good". They've studied openings and end game theory, have a good solid grasp of the game, and don't generally make serious mistakes. They can easily crush any casual unrated player with very little thought, and can even get away with claiming they're a soop-ar chess maxstore when playing n00bs who don't know any better.
  13. 22 Sep '08 01:46
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    What do you consider the minimum threshold for a "good" player?
    I'm still on the journey with a long road in front of me, but let's not set the bar too high. You're good if:

    You have enough knowledge of openings that you reach a playable middle-game.

    You know the basic endings, especially K v K+p, in your sleep.

    You get your Rooks out to useful squares at least by the late stages of the opening.

    You blunder-check EVERY move...nobody gets anything for free.

    You know the basic patterns of the attack on the castled King.

    You know for both attack and defense the importance of open lines.

    You are willing to step beyond Q=9 R=5 etc and make adjustments in the value of the pieces.

    You sit down at any chessboard and see it as an old friend. You have a quiet confidence that you know how to play well.

    Others?
  14. 22 Sep '08 02:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by wormwood
    it's not disappointing (at least to me), it's just realistic. and I just can't bring myself to say that a 'halfway there' skill was 'good' in any context, no matter how many people were even worse.

    and that old master can still convey his knowledge, teach others. he doesn't guess what 'might work' like we do, he already knows what works. he does h ...[text shortened]... ven though the youngsters could no doubt kick his ass without breaking a sweat, right?
    Well, how good someone is depends on what percent of people are better or worse. If you are better than 75% of people and there is another that is better than 99%, that doesn't mean you're not good. At least not to me.

    Moreover, while I'm sure the old master who dropped to 1800 still has a lot to teach, chess is too concrete to rely just on generalities and experience. I'm not sure I would trust him enough if I were more than 2000.
  15. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    22 Sep '08 02:42
    Originally posted by exigentsky
    Well, how good someone is depends on what percent of people are better or worse.
    no it doesn't.

    that's being better, but not necessarily 'good'. being good means you know your stuff. you either know it, or you don't. the number of people who are 'clueless' is irrelevant.

    a million dung-flies can be wrong. quantity isn't quality.