Question re: average player ratings • page 1/2 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

What is the average, non-professional chess player rated?

I ask because I have been playing chess for nearly 50 years -- and if I REALLY work at it, I can get my rating here up to 1500. I've read at least a dozen chess books, have belonged to two chess clubs over the years, and have played maybe half a dozen over-the-board tournaments just for the experience.

Yet almost every day, I come on here and find a player who joined Lichess in the past 30 days and they've got ratings at 1500 or above.

So I have to ask: Compared to the average player, do I suck at this game?

I know what the standard response is: Ignore ratings, just focus on the game, if you enjoy it, ratings don't matter, yadda yadda yadda. But I think it's objectively true that if you have no talent at something, you'd do a lot better to find something else you enjoy similarly that you DON'T suck at: painting, golf, woodworking, whatever. I like chess, sure, but probably no more than I would like a number of other pastimes that I might be better at.

Not fishing for compliments here and not looking for sympathy; this is an honest question and I'm seriously trying to evaluate how I spend my free time.

Thanks.

What is the average, non-professional chess player rated? I ask because I have been playing chess for nearly 50 years -- and if I REALLY work at it, I can get my rating here up to 1500. I've read at least a dozen chess books, have belonged to two chess clubs over the years, and have played maybe half a dozen over-the-board tournaments just for the experience. Yet almost every day, I come on here and find a player who joined Lichess in the past 30 days and they've got ratings at 1500 or above. So I have to ask: Compared to the average player, do I suck at this game? I know what the standard response is: Ignore ratings, just focus on the game, if you enjoy it, ratings don't matter, yadda yadda yadda. But I think it's objectively true that if you have no talent at something, you'd do a lot better to find something else you enjoy similarly that you DON'T suck at: painting, golf, woodworking, whatever. I like chess, sure, but probably no more than I would like a number of other pastimes that I might be better at. Not fishing for compliments here and not looking for sympathy; this is an honest question and I'm seriously trying to evaluate how I spend my free time. Thanks.

bravethetawave edited

#2

A lot of people here come from chess.com (not complete beginners).
The starting rating every new player gets is 1500
Nobody gets to 1500 a month after learning the rules
Do tactics puzzles, you'll improve
Hide your strategy books until you're good tactically
From looking at your games, you seem to have pretty good planning skills

A lot of people here come from chess.com (not complete beginners). The starting rating every new player gets is 1500 Nobody gets to 1500 a month after learning the rules Do tactics puzzles, you'll improve Hide your strategy books until you're good tactically From looking at your games, you seem to have pretty good planning skills

NM MrPushwood

#3

Judging from your ratings here, you are most likely somewhere in the D class. So in an objective sense it's true that you are probably a bit below average as a player. However, remember that there are whole multitudes who dream of someday getting a four-digit rating...so (as usual with these sorts of things) "good/not good" is all a matter of perspective.

And you seemingly have been fairly sporadic about it over the years; a dozen books is pretty good, but if they were all beginner books there was likely to be a lot of repetition. So anyway, maybe if you did decide to get serious about it, you might start improving in earnest?

I have to admit though I'm not quite sure why any of this should matter to you...I mean, if you really do like the game (as you say you do). After all, we all stink compared to somebody (and everybody sucks next to a computer), but still we gamely play on.

One thing that comes to mind though is that painting and woodworking don't involve a whole lot of competition (and even golf is more like competing with the course than against somebody else). Maybe it's the inescapably competitive aspect of chess--and the prospect of further drubbings from some more of these 30-day wonders--that has you questioning the whole business. ;)

Judging from your ratings here, you are most likely somewhere in the D class. So in an objective sense it's true that you are probably a bit below average as a player. However, remember that there are whole multitudes who dream of someday getting a four-digit rating...so (as usual with these sorts of things) "good/not good" is all a matter of perspective. And you seemingly have been fairly sporadic about it over the years; a dozen books is pretty good, but if they were all beginner books there was likely to be a lot of repetition. So anyway, maybe if you did decide to get serious about it, you might start improving in earnest? I have to admit though I'm not quite sure why any of this should matter to you...I mean, if you really do like the game (as you say you do). After all, we all stink compared to somebody (and everybody sucks next to a computer), but still we gamely play on. One thing that comes to mind though is that painting and woodworking don't involve a whole lot of competition (and even golf is more like competing with the course than against somebody else). Maybe it's the inescapably competitive aspect of chess--and the prospect of further drubbings from some more of these 30-day wonders--that has you questioning the whole business. ;)

GSP0113

#4

@bravethetawave Thanks for the friendly and non-judgmental advice. That's a sensible observation regarding Chess.com -- and I have to trust you're right that these 1500+ ratings aren't being obtained by players new to the game.

It sounds like I could benefit a lot from putting 30-60 mins/day into tactics puzzles. Perhaps what I'll do is give that a try, six days a week, for two months and see if I'm noticing any progress.

Thank you.

@bravethetawave Thanks for the friendly and non-judgmental advice. That's a sensible observation regarding Chess.com -- and I have to trust you're right that these 1500+ ratings aren't being obtained by players new to the game. It sounds like I could benefit a lot from putting 30-60 mins/day into tactics puzzles. Perhaps what I'll do is give that a try, six days a week, for two months and see if I'm noticing any progress. Thank you.

GSP0113

#5

@MrPushwood Thank you for the helpful response; I really appreciate it.

I would agree about the quality of my study, if one can call it that. I've never dedicated X amount of time per day to chess study nor gone about it with any kind of plan. It's been mainly a case of reading the odd book that comes my way once in awhile. Per my response to @bravethetawave, perhaps it would be interesting to give tactical puzzles a try in a more disciplined manner and see if I notice an improvement.

Good observation regarding the other pastimes I've mentioned. The ruthless aspect of chess can be fatiguing and if you're in the bottom half of the population, especially so.

Thanks again.

@MrPushwood Thank you for the helpful response; I really appreciate it. I would agree about the quality of my study, if one can call it that. I've never dedicated X amount of time per day to chess study nor gone about it with any kind of plan. It's been mainly a case of reading the odd book that comes my way once in awhile. Per my response to @bravethetawave, perhaps it would be interesting to give tactical puzzles a try in a more disciplined manner and see if I notice an improvement. Good observation regarding the other pastimes I've mentioned. The ruthless aspect of chess can be fatiguing and if you're in the bottom half of the population, especially so. Thanks again.

Akbar2thegreat

#6

@GSP0113
Firstly, why do you want to know?
~ Will you improve your performance on that basis.
And if you want to improve your game play, then there's no need to know about average chess player.
Just keep playing your game without any other distraction.
Well, it's around 1100 Lichess rating (446 FIDE rating) for an average chess player.

@GSP0113 Firstly, why do you want to know? ~ Will you improve your performance on that basis. And if you want to improve your game play, then there's no need to know about average chess player. Just keep playing your game without any other distraction. Well, it's around 1100 Lichess rating (446 FIDE rating) for an average chess player.

Deadban

#7

If we start from this data https://lichess.org/@/GSP0113/perf/rapid we can say that your rating on lichess is below average.
But you don't have to discourage yourself, because at that level there's plenty of room for improvement. I can tell you that the jump from 1400 to 1700 in rapid is not hard.
I'm going to tell you the few things that allowed me to gain hundreds of rating points in blitz/rapid in a reasonable period of time:
1- Opening theory. You don't have to learn tens of openings, each with tens of different variations, that's too much. One thing at a time. You learn two openings (one for 1.e4, one for 1.d4) for white and two for black, then two different lines for each color. You choose these openings and you play only these until you have mastered them.
Examples: as white for 1.e4 we have the italian game (giuoco piano) or the spanish game (ruy lopez), for 1.d4 we have the queen's gambit or the London. As black we have the sicilian or the scandinavian defense against 1.e4, the queen's gambit declined or the king's indian defense against 1.d4.
To learn opening theory you can use whatever you want but let me suggest you https://lichess.org/study/all/popular and https://www.chessable.com/

2- Puzzles. You need to understand, learn and use all the tactics chess has to offer. Start with the most common and basic ones like forks, pins, discover attacks and go on with the more advanced ones like double check, sacrifice, clearance, deflection...You need to play tons of puzzles because that is what helps you the most in terms of strategy and sharp play.
You can practice one theme at a time here https://lichess.org/training/themes and when you feel like you have learned enough you can go to the healthy mix, which is the best exercise you can do to improve. Lichess puzzles (differently from other sites) are taken from real games played by lichess players, which means higher chance of having the same position of the puzzle in one of your games.

3- Strategy. Avoid useless moves and sharpen your play. The things to do when you start a new game are (in order): conquer the centre, castle, finish developing your pieces. Nothing else, especially useless moves like knight jumps in the land of nobody and queen moves. Why? Because your opponent can easily attack these pieces and by doing so he develops his pieces for free, while you are forced to move back and waste a tempo.
With sharpen your play I mean cases where you are up so much material and you keep capturing material instead of looking for the best and quickest way to win the game.
There is a game, for example, where you have one queen, two rooks and one bishop and your opponent has only one rook. You decided it was best to keep capturing pawns instead of organizing your most powerful pieces for a checkmate. You see, in that situation capturing material is not wrong but it's risky because the less the pieces/pawns your opponent has, the less the squares he controls, which means that the chances of you making a stalemate are way higher.

Hopefully these few points will help you as they have helped me. Cheers.

If we start from this data https://lichess.org/@/GSP0113/perf/rapid we can say that your rating on lichess is below average. But you don't have to discourage yourself, because at that level there's plenty of room for improvement. I can tell you that the jump from 1400 to 1700 in rapid is not hard. I'm going to tell you the few things that allowed me to gain hundreds of rating points in blitz/rapid in a reasonable period of time: 1- Opening theory. You don't have to learn tens of openings, each with tens of different variations, that's too much. One thing at a time. You learn two openings (one for 1.e4, one for 1.d4) for white and two for black, then two different lines for each color. You choose these openings and you play only these until you have mastered them. Examples: as white for 1.e4 we have the italian game (giuoco piano) or the spanish game (ruy lopez), for 1.d4 we have the queen's gambit or the London. As black we have the sicilian or the scandinavian defense against 1.e4, the queen's gambit declined or the king's indian defense against 1.d4. To learn opening theory you can use whatever you want but let me suggest you https://lichess.org/study/all/popular and https://www.chessable.com/ 2- Puzzles. You need to understand, learn and use all the tactics chess has to offer. Start with the most common and basic ones like forks, pins, discover attacks and go on with the more advanced ones like double check, sacrifice, clearance, deflection...You need to play tons of puzzles because that is what helps you the most in terms of strategy and sharp play. You can practice one theme at a time here https://lichess.org/training/themes and when you feel like you have learned enough you can go to the healthy mix, which is the best exercise you can do to improve. Lichess puzzles (differently from other sites) are taken from real games played by lichess players, which means higher chance of having the same position of the puzzle in one of your games. 3- Strategy. Avoid useless moves and sharpen your play. The things to do when you start a new game are (in order): conquer the centre, castle, finish developing your pieces. Nothing else, especially useless moves like knight jumps in the land of nobody and queen moves. Why? Because your opponent can easily attack these pieces and by doing so he develops his pieces for free, while you are forced to move back and waste a tempo. With sharpen your play I mean cases where you are up so much material and you keep capturing material instead of looking for the best and quickest way to win the game. There is a game, for example, where you have one queen, two rooks and one bishop and your opponent has only one rook. You decided it was best to keep capturing pawns instead of organizing your most powerful pieces for a checkmate. You see, in that situation capturing material is not wrong but it's risky because the less the pieces/pawns your opponent has, the less the squares he controls, which means that the chances of you making a stalemate are way higher. Hopefully these few points will help you as they have helped me. Cheers.

M-Mohebi

#8

Your rapid percentile is 40%. It means that 60% of rapid players in Lichess have higher ratings than you do.
But rating is not the indicator of whether you should stop playing chess or not. The important question is whether you enjoy this activity or not.

Your rapid percentile is 40%. It means that 60% of rapid players in Lichess have higher ratings than you do. But rating is not the indicator of whether you should stop playing chess or not. The important question is whether you enjoy this activity or not.

ungewichtet

#9

"..you'd do a lot better to find something else you enjoy similarly that you DON'T suck at.."

You cannot measure chess ability with the rating system. Imagine everybody read 12 chess books, then the playing level would just rise all over. Most everybody might be 1350 and delight in the game. So, if you do not trust "delight", basically you'd have to ask data bases like lichess to find out a development in centipawn loss or something to find out the meaning of the rating.

What do you mean by suck? If you like it, you will also like to study it.

"The ruthless aspect of chess can be fatiguing and if you're in the bottom half of the population, especially so."

I do not think that competition is a ruthless aspect of chess. Golf and woodworking are ruthless. Chess is rather brother- and sisterly, isn't it?

"..you'd do a lot better to find something else you enjoy similarly that you DON'T suck at.." You cannot measure chess ability with the rating system. Imagine everybody read 12 chess books, then the playing level would just rise all over. Most everybody might be 1350 and delight in the game. So, if you do not trust "delight", basically you'd have to ask data bases like lichess to find out a development in centipawn loss or something to find out the meaning of the rating. What do you mean by suck? If you like it, you will also like to study it. "The ruthless aspect of chess can be fatiguing and if you're in the bottom half of the population, especially so." I do not think that competition is a ruthless aspect of chess. Golf and woodworking are ruthless. Chess is rather brother- and sisterly, isn't it?

GLSmyth

#10

I play longer games here (30+ min) and shorter ones on chess.com (15+10). I finally decided that I would probably just have more fun playing unrated games in those faster time limits, so that is what I have been doing for a while. I win some, I lose some, but the element of "I've got to improve my rating" is not an issue. I don't suck at photography and writing music, but since I put both out for anyone to see/hear there is still the same pressure. I love doing those as well as chess, and would love to be able to do better, and continually work to do better, but there will always be someone well above me, and that's okay.