lichess.org
Donate

Am i good at chess now???

ive been able to beat 1700s and 1800s pretty easily now am I good at chess?
It doesn't matter if you are able to beat them once or twice, to be 'good' you have to define what good in terms of chess elo. I would say that at around 1800 average rating is about where i will call being good is. Seeing your rating (around 1400), you need to play more games to have a higher average rating to be considered 'good.'
The bulk of players are rated between 1200 and 1600 (lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/blitz). If you are around 1400, then yes you are good at chess (almost better than 50% of players). Also, consider that chess players are a minority of the population (people who play regularly). Less than 200,000 people played (Blitz) chess on lichess.org last week. That's a tiny fraction of the population. I mean...how high are we gonna set the bar here? 1800 is almost better than 90% percent of the players. I think that is too high. If you are playing well with the bulk of players between 1200 and 1600, then you are good at that thing you are playing.
I disagree @spyhunter357 - you have an equivocation of "good" in your explanation. What you're describing is "good relative to the general Lichess population", and that provides no useful benchmark in an objective sense - if the vast majority of those players do not play solid chess (e.g. hang pieces, positional deficiencies, etc.), then beating said players doesn't equate to being a sound player.

It's like my wife telling me that she's giving her 9th grader a B+ on a paper, even though that paper is not a high-quality work, just because "it was good for him" based on some watered-down standard.
accuracy is a good indicator of your chess playing abilities..do a post-game analysis of your last 20 games with stockfish..figure out your average number of inaccuracies,mistakes,&blunders per game..also your average centipawn loss..2 inaccuracies,1 mistake,<1 blunder,& <30 centipawn loss over 20 games would be very good in my book... 6 inaccuracies, 3 mistakes, 2 blunders,& 100plus centipawn loss would not be so good... You can measure your accuracy and that is a pretty good reflection of your chess playing skills..(bear in mind that you should strive to play opponents that are close to your rating level)..I like to use this method to keep track of my progress because rating is based on win percentage and if I beat someone halfway around the world who has been playing all day and it is getting late so he is starting to play off-tilt while I happen to be well rested and focused... it is a lucky win.. analysis provides a more objective indication of one's skill level in my opinion..
I work hard all day and manage to play some chess at night after dinner as a way to unwind... most of my games are off-tilt fiascos or lucky wins. I play much better when I've had a good night sleep and I've got the day off from work, chores, and other responsibilities. I imagine that other players are in the same boat... and our 1400 ratings reflect this. In short, a 1400 player can beat 1800 players consistently on a good day. Therefore, ratings are unreliable indicators of skill level. Most of these 2000 plus rated players probably do not share the same kind of circumstances or lifestyle as the 1400 players... A guy who works 50 hours a week framing houses generally will not be as high rated as some trustfund baby though their skill level may be equal. Just my opinion.
The fact that your opponents play badly does not mean you are good. To be good, you must not make silly mistakes. Therfore, after you finish playing a game, request a computer analysis. If you haven't made any mistakes or blunders, you have played well. Regarding inaccuracies, it's ok to make then. Even Magnus Carlsen and Fabiano Caruana make some of them. Their acpl is always under 10, so they both play better than Stockfish.
God and old are relative. Old = older than you, young = younger than you. Good = better than you, weak = weaker than you.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.