Rating of 0:
Makes fun of someone rating of 1900.
Wow.
Makes fun of someone rating of 1900.
Wow.
@KingKenKong
"I ask this because I honestly don't know. if i gain 200 more rating points, and become 2100, will i then be a good player? or at least decent?
If you could class the ratings in a SS,S, A, B,C,D ranking, that would be a great help also.."
It's good.
It's also subjective.
"I ask this because I honestly don't know. if i gain 200 more rating points, and become 2100, will i then be a good player? or at least decent?
If you could class the ratings in a SS,S, A, B,C,D ranking, that would be a great help also.."
It's good.
It's also subjective.
You're better than billions of people are at chess.
Numbers are just numbers, especially in online chess. You can get a decent rating just by being fast or a low rating by losing your winning positions on time.
What is important is that you understand what is happening in a chess game - not 100% of course, but are you good enough to explain to a weaker player what plans are played and what tactics to look out for and answer most of their general question? If so, you are a decent player.
Hmm, maybe lichess could add some kind of tests for general level - like the belts in karate?
Just basic tests - for example the lowest would be to be able to beat Stockfish with K+Q vs K, K+R vs K, K+BB vs K, knowing the square rule in pawn endings and how to win a bunch of other basic positions.
What is important is that you understand what is happening in a chess game - not 100% of course, but are you good enough to explain to a weaker player what plans are played and what tactics to look out for and answer most of their general question? If so, you are a decent player.
Hmm, maybe lichess could add some kind of tests for general level - like the belts in karate?
Just basic tests - for example the lowest would be to be able to beat Stockfish with K+Q vs K, K+R vs K, K+BB vs K, knowing the square rule in pawn endings and how to win a bunch of other basic positions.
All relative to the practitioner and audience. Going by percentile of practitioners 1900 is well above the average, but if you’re talking strictly about performance anything less than grand master is likely below the threshold of playing good chess- since the more you know the more you realize you’ll never know enough.
-Jordan
-Jordan
No, 1900 is rubbish!
How do I know? Because I'm a 1900 myself, and I'm rubbish!
(Ignore the fact that rapid and blitz are different, BTW).
How do I know? Because I'm a 1900 myself, and I'm rubbish!
(Ignore the fact that rapid and blitz are different, BTW).
"It is still way better than 0."
Yeah, that was my point, Malvolio. Learn how to read.
Yeah, that was my point, Malvolio. Learn how to read.
He is congratulating @Maldeo (I don't see any bad intention,
I think @MrPushwood has got many people with grudges on him!.
I think @MrPushwood has got many people with grudges on him!.
I confirm, along the other 1900 rated players, that we are not all that good as you may think.
Practicing tactics frequently will quickly bring you to this level. Or... play blitz for the next 3 years as I did without studying anything. It's the same, really.
Practicing tactics frequently will quickly bring you to this level. Or... play blitz for the next 3 years as I did without studying anything. It's the same, really.
Good Player, but sometime but Player. But fantasting Player. The Best Player on bullet or blitz.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.