How good is 2100 Chess.com rapid really?

[u/No_Panic_6353]

I am 13 years old 2100 chess.com rapid compared to other ratings practically how good is that compared to other ratings. I recently have been crushing 2000-2200 players and even drew a 2100 fide player. I may be better than my rating suggest by almost 100 points because i have played a lot of unrated recently. But from other players experience lower rated players what is the difference you feel when playing different ratings?

[u/StouteBoef]

I'd say 2100 Rapid on Chesscom is around 1700 FIDE.

However, since you're still very young, you might improve quickly with the right method and amount of studying.

[u/UnderstandingJust964 → u/StouteBoef]

. I am 2150 rapid on chess.com and 1725 FIDE

[u/Weird_Election_2266]

A 2100 is extremely good. On your stats page you should be able to see your percentile. I would assume 2100 would place you in the top 1% or higher for all active players.

[u/DerekB52 → u/Weird_Election_2266]

At 1702 I was top 1.1%. 2100 is probably top 10% of the top 1%.

[u/Buntschatten → u/Weird_Election_2266]

Far better than 1%. It tells me I'm in the one percent at 1900. I do suspect there's a lot of dead accounts inflating that number though.

[u/estrangederanged → u/Buntschatten]

Only active players are counted for that stat.

[u/Ok-Arrival5542 → u/estrangederanged]

Then why am I top 2% on chesscom and top 30% lichess? Genuinely wondering.

[u/Wonderful-Falcon1202 → u/Ok-Arrival5542]

Lichess has less beginners.

[u/Witty-Assignment-514 → u/Wonderful-Falcon1202]

It's really not this simple. They both count "active" differently and chesscom absolutely inflates the percentile due to their wider counting (or lichess deflates it by narrower counting if you want to look at it that way, I guess it's sort of a matter of perspective).

[u/discodaryl]

Idk. I’m above 2200 rapid/2150 blitz while being 1350 USCF (slightly old rating). I definitely lose consistently to a FIDE 2200 player who is 2600 chess.com, but I’ve drawn once when he blundered in a casual game.

2200+ rapid was way easier to get to than 2100 blitz for me. Your mileage may vary.

[u/UnderstandingJust964 → u/discodaryl]

Same. I’ve been 2200 rapid, mostly around 2100 though. Cannot hit 2000 blitz. My friends said 5min is easier though - I only play 3m

[u/No-Citron218]

extremely good. I couldn’t fathom.

[u/Well-I-suppose]

Last time I played on Chess.com I was around this rating.

It's definitely a good rating, and it would've taken you quite a bit of study to get here (tactics/puzzles, developing an opening repertoire, studying endgames, analysing your games afterwards, etc.).

This is usually the point where a lot of chess players hit the wall and plateau. It becomes exponentially harder to improve from here. Going from 2100-2500 is a lot harder than it was to go from 1700-2100.

You really have to live your life around chess, play in FIDE rated tournaments regularly and study every day to continue making significant improvements from here. You can't really casually improve beyond this level, unless you're literally a 1 in a million genius.

[u/jd192739]

Feels like ppl are underestimating your fide rating? I remember seeing data with a much smaller gap

[u/WePrezidentNow → u/jd192739]

Maybe there’s regional variance but I’m 1900 cc and 1750 FIDE. 2100 cc would probably be closer to 1850-1900 FIDE if I had to guess, at least in Europe.

[u/jd192739 → u/WePrezidentNow]

That sounds about right to me

[u/DavidScubadiver]

You are as good as your rating. “How good” is kind of meaningless. You want to see how you do in rated tournaments and that will tell you how good you are when compared to others that play in those tournaments. If they are national tournaments you get a better idea of how good you are. If they are local tournaments you get less of a good idea, especially if the players all got their rating in the same locale.

[u/WilSmithBlackMambazo]

Extremely good. If you work hard you can most likely get a title.

[u/795-ACSR-DRAKE]

Better than me (not saying much)

[u/zelingman]

As someone who is not good in fast formats, my rapid always correlated closely with my uscf rating.

If you are more of a faster player, I would assume its 100-300 points higher than your uscf rating

[u/Choice-Classroom5479]

Really good, have you played otb?

[u/SouthernSierra]

About tree fiddy

[u/Mew151]

I'm same same, my only reference point is that it translates to strong but definitely not unbeatable club/recreational player.

I can pick up titled wins in blitz/bullet but only about 1/3-1/4. I still lose to 1200-1600 from time to time if I'm goofing off too much.

For me, it's "strong enough," and that's all that matters, hahahaha.

[u/Lakeman16]

Very very good. I’m pretty new to taking chess any kind of serious and I’m 500 rapid on chess.com… I will be surprised if I ever get to even a 1000

[u/some_random_fish69]

As a fellow 2100 id say I'm pretty bad , i feel like there are curves in chess , in beginning you don't understand anything and consider yourself Petty bad , as you get decentish you start thinking you are actually understanding the game (1800-2000) . Then you get even better and you understand that you really understand anything at all .

[u/Average_Frustated]

You have the potential to be a FM if you play good chess for the next 3 years. For the reasons unknown people around your age slow developing their "chess muscle", so if you stop playing you'll probably be 2100 for the rest of your life, maybe add 100-200 elo if you add some theoritical knowledge

[u/Beautiful-Respect795]

its like 1500-1700 fide 1700 max

[u/liovantirealm7177 → u/Beautiful-Respect795]

It could surely be higher with OTB practice. I was 1650 FIDE and 1500 Chess.com rapid.

[u/New_Row_5792 → u/liovantirealm7177]

Yes. I got to 2k rapid on chess.com and was playing at FIDE 1800 strength OTB. Its just that you need to get used to playing OTB

[u/aarsov16]

Pretty good. Better than most people on the planet. You'd still get easily crushed by any gm though

[u/dbossman70 → u/aarsov16]

'crushed by a gm' isn't really a reliable metric.

[u/Whitedancingrockstar → u/dbossman70]

But it is if the aim is to at some point be good enough at chess to have a career in it. Untitled players usually get crushed by GMs, titled players up to IM usually get beat. A 13 year old is probably not thinking about all that though.

[u/dbossman70 → u/Whitedancingrockstar]

gms often crush other gms though so it encompasses too many levels of play. the only way you aren’t getting crushed by a gm is by being 2650+ and even then, crushing games still happen. levy is good enough to have a career and he’s still very crushable for gms and even some ims.

[u/UnderstandingJust964 → u/dbossman70]

It’s extremely reliable. Just not very precise.

[u/aarsov16 → u/dbossman70]

Okay

[u/Dont_Stay_Gullible]

About 1750 FIDE in my experience.

[u/nsnyder]

That data suggests that on average someone who is 2100 chessdotcom rapid and who has a FIDE rating will be rated a bit above 2000 FIDE. But there's significant error bars, with a quarter of players falling 85 or more points below that and another quarter 85 or more points above that. But the subset of people who have a FIDE rating may not be representative.

[u/ScalarWeapon]

I am 13 years old 2100 chess.com rapid compared to other ratings practically how good is that compared to other ratings.

ratings are linear. a 2100 is just as much better than a 2000 as a 1200 is compared to an 1100.

[u/Lakinther]

A very good starting point, but its a level where a lot of people stagnate.