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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 07 Aug '08 10:58
    Can anyone please tell me how good different ratings are?
    How good is 1600, 1700, 1800 etc.

    What rating is a grand master?

    Thanks.
  2. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    07 Aug '08 11:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by bobbyald
    Can anyone please tell me how good different ratings are?
    How good is 1600, 1700, 1800 etc.

    What rating is a grand master?

    Thanks.
    The FIDE ratings for titled players are

    FM 2300
    IM 2400
    GM 2500

    I believe players have to stay above these ratings for a minimum number of games (30 comes to mind) and achieve norms in appropriate tournaments plus pay a fee to FIDE.

    FIDE ratings are not directly comparable to RHP although there should be a rough correlation.


    As a rough guide below these elevated heights
    2000-2300 are strong county / club players;
    1800-2000 are good club players;
    1600-1800 are average club players;
    1400-1600 are improving players;
    1200-1400 are social players only;
    below 1200 are beginners.
  3. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    07 Aug '08 13:02 / 1 edit
    As a rough guide below these elevated heights
    2000-2300 are strong county / club players;
    1800-2000 are good club players;
    1600-1800 are average club players;
    1400-1600 are improving players;
    1200-1400 are social players only;
    below 1200 are beginners.
    where does that put 'advanced beginners'?
  4. 07 Aug '08 14:07
    On this site, a 1600 player is, like, really, really good. Like me.
  5. 07 Aug '08 14:17
    I'll join the peanut gallery.... 1400-1600 is improving....well, does that mean that if a player stays in that range for his whole life that he'll be better in his next life? Or is it more like the logic of "new AND improved?"
  6. 07 Aug '08 14:24
    Ratings from site to site are different. Everything is relative to the strength of the people you are playing.

    1200 here is not the same as 1200 OTB which is not the same as 1200 at FICS. At FICS I'm a 1000 Blitz but 1300 Standard. I'd fall into two different categories at the same time using the numbers given above.
  7. 07 Aug '08 14:28
    I think the idea is that, to play consistently at a 1400 level, a player usually has undertaken some degree of study. It's an assumption that a player who begins study will continue it, which should eventually result in a higher rating.

    Of course, I made all that up just now, so who knows? Me, I'm probably going to be a social player for life. My goal is to be a good one, otherwise I simply don't have the time or ambition to reach any serious level.
  8. 07 Aug '08 14:55
    Take a look at the player tables, there are 19000+ players, take the top percentage of them that you would consider classifies them as being "good", and see where that rating puts them.

    That's a start, at least.
  9. 08 Aug '08 17:07
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Ratings from site to site are different. Everything is relative to the strength of the people you are playing.

    1200 here is not the same as 1200 OTB which is not the same as 1200 at FICS. At FICS I'm a 1000 Blitz but 1300 Standard. I'd fall into two different categories at the same time using the numbers given above.
    You are an improving beginner