Is 1700s good in blitz? I am asking this because after browsing I find 2000 rated players.
wdym "after browsing" ... where ...
if you use the quick pairing, you should get opponents around 1700
if you use the quick pairing, you should get opponents around 1700
I could be wrong (someone correct me if I am), but I believe the ratings are constantly adjusted so that their median is 1500. From that perspective, 1700 is good because it is higher then the 50 percentile which is 1500.
I don't know if the 1500 median applies to all accounts, all active accounts, all established ratings, all ratings with deviations lower than a certain value, or what. Others will no doubt tell us.
I don't know if the 1500 median applies to all accounts, all active accounts, all established ratings, all ratings with deviations lower than a certain value, or what. Others will no doubt tell us.
@Cedur216 said in #2:
> wdym "after browsing" ... where ...
>
> if you use the quick pairing, you should get opponents around 1700
When you are in the homepage you can see 2000 rated players.
> wdym "after browsing" ... where ...
>
> if you use the quick pairing, you should get opponents around 1700
When you are in the homepage you can see 2000 rated players.
@Chess-King90 said in #4:
> When you are in the homepage you can see 2000 rated players.
There are 3000 rated players. From this POV, 1700 is not good, sorry to say. "New to lichess" says nothing, you might have 10,000 games on other servers and decades of OTB experience.
> When you are in the homepage you can see 2000 rated players.
There are 3000 rated players. From this POV, 1700 is not good, sorry to say. "New to lichess" says nothing, you might have 10,000 games on other servers and decades of OTB experience.
@sheckley666 said in #5:
> There are 3000 rated players. From this POV, 1700 is not good, sorry to say. "New to lichess" says nothing, you might have 10,000 games on other servers and decades of OTB experience.
Yes you are right. A 1700 rated player should really take an advice of a 1300 rated player seriously since a 1300 rated player is better than a 1700 rated player. I have a question. PRAY TELL ME HOW MANY 3000 RATED PLAYERS ARE THERE ON LICHESS(Non provisional)?
> There are 3000 rated players. From this POV, 1700 is not good, sorry to say. "New to lichess" says nothing, you might have 10,000 games on other servers and decades of OTB experience.
Yes you are right. A 1700 rated player should really take an advice of a 1300 rated player seriously since a 1300 rated player is better than a 1700 rated player. I have a question. PRAY TELL ME HOW MANY 3000 RATED PLAYERS ARE THERE ON LICHESS(Non provisional)?
@Chess-King90 I didn't give you any advice.
I don't know how many 3000 rated players there are on lichess. One example is DrNykterstein. many of them don't appear in ranking lists, because these lists only show active players who have at least one game played most recently.
I don't know how many 3000 rated players there are on lichess. One example is DrNykterstein. many of them don't appear in ranking lists, because these lists only show active players who have at least one game played most recently.
@Chess-King90 said in #6:
> Yes you are right. A 1700 rated player should really take an advice of a 1300 rated player seriously since a 1300 rated player is better than a 1700 rated player.
If you're going to ask a question but get hurt when you didn't get the answer you wanted, why ask the question in the first place?
And yes, as a 2000 rated player, I can confirm that 2000s are not very good and therefore 1700s must be terrible. As further evidence, consider this game in which you lost to a 600 in 7 moves:
> Yes you are right. A 1700 rated player should really take an advice of a 1300 rated player seriously since a 1300 rated player is better than a 1700 rated player.
If you're going to ask a question but get hurt when you didn't get the answer you wanted, why ask the question in the first place?
And yes, as a 2000 rated player, I can confirm that 2000s are not very good and therefore 1700s must be terrible. As further evidence, consider this game in which you lost to a 600 in 7 moves:
Well,1700 is a good rating (it is advanced level), it's because you created a new account, and your ratings are provisional, if you win first 10- 20 matches, your rating boosts like +1000-1200 (added all up together) approximately. you should be non provisional once you complete 35-60 games. It'll help you be normal. you must try starting a match and play it, then you'll find 1700-1800 rated players
IIRC the rating of ~1700 should be somewhere around 70th percentile, i.e. better than ~70% of active players, worse than ~30%, that's probably the most relevant way to evaluate it. Whether that's "good" by your standards, that's up to you, of course.
@sheckley666 said in #7:
> many of them don't appear in ranking lists, because these lists only show active players who have at least one game played most recently.
The ranking lists also show only players with rating deviation 75 and lower which also requires certain level of activity (and consistency).
@sheckley666 said in #7:
> many of them don't appear in ranking lists, because these lists only show active players who have at least one game played most recently.
The ranking lists also show only players with rating deviation 75 and lower which also requires certain level of activity (and consistency).