Is 1900+ blitz rating on lichess considered an above average player?

I'm a chess player and so I enjoy logical argument.

I have to disagree with TheDudeAbides about 1900 being legit.

Why?

If 95% of the world was between the ages of 1-3 years old...
And 1% of the world was over 50...

It really wouldn't mean much for a 3 year old to make a "top 10%" argument.
It's simply insignificant.

The difference between 1600 and 1900 is almost non-existent.
The difference between 1900 and 2100 is almost non-existent.

The point is, there is a brick wall between lower-rated players (<2200 FIDE/<2300 Lichess ), and NM/IM/GM play.

Titled play is a completely different class.

-

Yes, "better than 90%", but that's just not a significant representation.

I think that Sarg0n's suggestion makes a lot of sense.

Sure, I can no longer drool over my "top 98.9%" bla bla bla...

...but I put no stock in that number anyway. I know the truth about myself.

And the truth is:

"Hi. My name is Onyx, and I'm a lower-rated chess player."
"Hello Onyx." - 99.75% of the chess world.

"Top 98.9%" is what I tell people who know nothing about chess.

They say, "Whoa."
I say, "It's not really that big of a deal."
They think I'm just being humble.
But I know that I'm full of crap.

"How can you say that! '98.9%' is 98.9%!"

Yes...but like I said...

3 year olds can't talk about being grown...much less elderly.

I consider myself in the <2200 class. No different than a 1500 or 1700.

Don't get me wrong, LB for LB I'm sure that I can teach a 1500 to become a 1600 faster/better than the rest...but at the end of the day...we're still in the same class.

If/when I earn a +2000 official FIDE rating, I'll start considering ideas of "pride in accomplishment".

Until then, I'm stuck with a pride in a vast bredth of chess knowledge, chess psychology, and unlimited enjoyment with a lifetime hobby.

90% better from all players is good.

But in real life it seems that the pool is made up just for those 10%. So if you are at the bottom 10% you would be better than just 1% in real life ^^.

The fewer players, the better they will be. In places where chess is not common, a tournament attracts only top players! They are willing to travel and take chess very seriously. Tourists are less frequent!

In places like the US, chess is more popular so you can find players rated 1200. In my country every player willing to play live tournaments has a minimum of 1700! (except school tournaments).

One time I was flaunting my computer programming skills. Then a friend told me: you are a mediocre programmer. Thinking about it, I had to agree.

We cannot, as serious chess players, compare ourselves with tourists. We have to compare ourselves with other players as serious as us in chess. And that means comparing us with the 20% here, so if we are better than 90% is the same as saying that we are better than 50% as already commented on this topic!

@Turkeyeng Lichess is more competitive now than in 2016. I noticed an increase of at least 150 points. That is, players who could reach 2100 in 2016 fight to maintain 1950 in 2019.

I see your argument @Onyx_Chess . I think the question and pyschology behind this question is looking for confidence boost about Ops blitz rating. I think he should be proud to be at <1900 in Blitz. I been playing online since 2003 and 1900 isn"t to shabby in blitz. I also agree with you @willwss

@TheDudeAbides

I think I'll disgress my argument.

I neglected to build OP's esteem in favour of an argument.

I should have at least done both.

Objectively, it's obviously a matter of perspective, but the bigger picture consideration should have had me just support OP.

Thanks for pointing that out.

-

@Anderson2158

Yes it is! 1900 is very good. It's tough to touch the 1900s without having some talent.
There is definitely lots of room for improvement, but at the same time, there are many people that will never achieve that mark even after investing copious amounts of energy.

Good luck with your progress and your tournament, keep us posted!

@Onyx_Chess

" there are many people that will never achieve that mark even after investing copious amounts of energy"

I Believe anyone with normal intelligence, with the same energy expenditure as me, would achieve 2000.

To reach 2000 one need just learn something or other about endgame, typical maneuvers, some openings, etc.. It is not necessary talent, find hidden resources, etc. Play the basics, the simple, avoiding huge blunders, etc. is enough.

Chess really starts after 2000, at the expert level, which requires more than just one's internal logic ...

"Hi all, the topic says it all. Im having a real life upcoming tournament in my university and it's quite important to me. Since i dont have a real life rating, i would just like to know where do i stand. In another website, chesscom im rated around 1800 but dropped to 1700. I somehow cant win games there but i have better chances here for some unknown reason (maybe it's my mentality). I was able to defeat opponents around 1900 to 2100 (maybe im quite lucky). Sorry for the bantering, im just really anxious about the tournament"

IIRC, the two sites use slightly different rating systems, so the player strengths at a given rating are not necessarily comparable. Neither system is equivalent to a FIDE rating.

As far as the OTB tournament is concerned, honestly, the best thing to do is just relax and not worry about how your performance is going to turn out. Play the best chess you can and see where you end up. Remember that people who play in tournaments are a self-selected group... they probably won't be representative of average players.

"The point is, there is a brick wall between lower-rated players (<2200 FIDE/<2300 Lichess ), and NM/IM/GM play.

Titled play is a completely different class."

In a small local tournament, it's fairly unlikely that there's going to be more than one or two such players. It's not really worth worrying about this, IMHO.

If your 1700 on Chess.com, you'd be about 2000 FIDE or around the 90% of rated players. Most players in the world are unrated
and play well below the average rated player which is around 1400. If you are young and play more tournaments for several
years, you should be able to achieve a master's rating of 2200+. Good luck!

1700 chess.com rating isn't 2000 FIDE. Chess.com blitz ratings actually track FIDE ratings fairly well in this range... 1700 blitz is roughly 1700 FIDE.

Well than why is 1700 Chess.com blitz around the 90%? I have achieved 1780 there and was ranked in the 95%.
A friend of mine rating is 1920 blitz and that was rated in the 98.4% at the time. He did at one point have a 2184 USCF rating.

I know 1700 FIDE is nowhere near the 90%, maybe 76% at best. Very simple to check out your opponents rankings on C.C by
clicking o full stats.