1000 would make you better than most people who know how to play chess, and better than most people who play chess regularly. It's a good place to get to for a casual player who doesn't want to study and play every day.
What elo is a good elo to you?
Sort:
Seems to always be a hundred to a couple hundred rating points higher than my own rating 
First it was 800, but when I got there it was 1000. Then I got to 1000 and it was all of a sudden 1200. Then I got there and it went up another 100. Now I'm 1400 and I am sure it is at least 1500.
I don't think I will ever reach what I think a good rating is.
The most important point is, it is all subjective. Very subjective.
christopherjanuary wrote:
post
2307
Perhaps It's a bit like the rating of Warcraft 3 (and many other games), itself it's just a display and the statistics have even more relevance than the rating level displayed.
Now we make evaluation benchmark and we want to evaluation benchmark otherwise we say that it is anything or badly made like I think on lichess.
So in short the evaluation benchmark is 2000 is good or strong so a chess program like Chessmaster, Hiarcs or Shredder (ipad, cell phone) are not so badly made because I think it is difficult to reach 2000 (not to beat a +2000 level but to be rated +2000).
Chess programs can be anything in the other direction with reference to the official human. In a rapid chess program a human 1900 FIDE could be rated 2300 and in another chess program a human 2300 FIDE could not be rated 2000.
After if we fix that vis-à-vis a human vs human rating in a country or a given place etc. I would say that the relevance should be in relation to the number of players and how many come to have such or such elo display. For example if there are many people playing in 15m10s per move and 90% are rated 2000 and +, 2000 shouldn't be really or so good but if it is only 10% rated 2000 and +, 2000 should be good.
“Good” is subjective and is typically suggested as 200 points higher rated than whatever the person asking the question is!
Practically speaking, I started to become competitive against folks in my office which had around 15 regular, causal chess players once I was around 1100 blitz, and I became the best of the group once I hit 1500 blitz. I’ve always looked at 1500 blitz as a strong milestone, but it is somewhat arbitrary.
Now I look at 2300 blitz as a good player, but that’s probably cause I’m 2100 blitz so am in that “+200 rating points” point of view!
Even though I know 2100 blitz is decent, it’s hard to say it’s “good” because I’ve reached it, so good is always a bracket above where I’m at! If I reach 2300, I’m sure I’ll just say that is average since I got there, and the new “good” will become 2500+ 🤣
Practically speaking, I started to become competitive against folks in my office which had around 15 regular, causal chess players once I was around 1100 blitz, and I became the best of the group once I hit 1500 blitz. I’ve always looked at 1500 blitz as a strong milestone, but it is somewhat arbitrary.
Now I look at 2300 blitz as a good player, but that’s probably cause I’m 2100 blitz so am in that “+200 rating points” point of view!
Even though I know 2100 blitz is decent, it’s hard to say it’s “good” because I’ve reached it, so good is always a bracket above where I’m at! If I reach 2300, I’m sure I’ll just say that is average since I got there, and the new “good” will become 2500+ 🤣
2150+ is a good place to be
people below that 1900-2150 are strong players but usually have a evident weakness somewhere and they play passively alot (as ive seen) to try to lure their oppoment to attack them in hopes they can refute it (common strategy) but if their opoment is strong in the art of attacking generally they lose
It's probably arbitrary, as for the casual player it only dictates the matchmaking you'll get online, or which OTB tournament you should enter to enjoy your time best. That said, it's probably somewhere in the range where you can regularly compete in open tournaments for prize money, so somewhere between 2000-2300. Professionals who make chess their jobs are over 2700. Personally if I were to ever reach 1800, I'd be satisified.
My subjective opinion, from 2000 and more.
A “good” Elo in terms of chess.com rating would probably be 2200
(me at 200 elo) ... of for go-
1200s are fellable for me but i dont remember the last time i even faced a 1300 lol
but i mean 1100+200=1300
Hello everyone
1800 is where chess players become good in my opinion
2100+ is a good rating to stop at (if you were to ever stop playing chess)
at that point, you very rarely blunder, make little to no mistakes in classical/rapid times, you know your theory, you know and can recognize patterns, and you don't just fully relay on intuition as many people here do.
in about 1750 and i know what im weak at but i cant find a way to improve, everythings behind a paywall
many people (usually around master level +) wont allow you to play them unless you pay them
they will give you 0 advice and try to make you pay instead
I truly believe to get better there comes a point where you must interact and receive support from a master level player.
i'd say 1600+; my lichess rating is ~1800
About 1000 elo is a big milestone but 2000 elo basically means your a master (ish). So I’d still say 1000
W
0 is the best elo
post