It seems to be of great pleasure on seeing a good response on the articles our team writes. Thank you so much for giving such a lovely response. When I see the kind of love people have for chess coming from different regions, different background, different countries with different views it makes me filled with joy.
The scale in which your rating occurred doesn’t really define your love for chess. But yes you need to be very active and selective in terms of chess.
When the question gradually arises in your mind that am I a good chess player? Can I play better? Then I guess you should actually focus more on your game and start analyzing the games and tactics of renowned player.
One of the most common comments can be summarized like this: According to the scale I am supposed to be a strong tournament player, but I am rated only 1600, so the evaluation is not right! Naturally, such a comment brings a logical question: What is a strong tournament player? Or better yet, what is a strong player in general?
It is very difficult to answer such a question. For Magnus Carlsen, anyone outside of top 50 in the world is probably not a strong player.
Meanwhile, for a person who just learned how to play chess everyone looks like a grandmaster. Don't laugh; I know what I am talking about. Some of the reader views truly surprised me. I expected to see comments like "Yay, I scored over 20 points and my rating is 1600!" Instead I saw something like "I scored over 20 points, but my rating is only 1600. I suck ". Come on I mean don’t be so demoralized guys! Not everyone gets on this rating. You should be proud of what you have and try to see how you progress slowly and steadily.
It takes years of dedication and hard work to achieve a rating of 1600, so why not be proud of it? It reminds me of people who complain about some minor inconvenience, thinking that it makes their life miserable. They forget that since they have a roof over their head, food on their table, clean water and access to basic sanitation, they already live better than billions of people who don't have these necessities!
Now let's check some statistics. According to USCF data, if you are USCF rated 1600-1699, then you are better than almost 83 percent of all other USCF members! The statistics are from 2004.Scholastic chess is booming, so the base gets much bigger and therefore your placement should be at least a couple of percentage points higher!
Benjamin Disraeli famously said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
You might be the same kind of a person who doesn't trust statistics. Or maybe you simply think that being a good chess player is not about statistics and percentiles; it is about good play! Fair enough.
Just keep in mind that if a chess player has a modest rating it doesn't mean he cannot play good chess.
You should actually go for such examples on the site which would give you a quick glance of what I am trying to say. It’s just simple that rating doesn’t makes you great it’s just a number t o show how far you can go. Your personal skills and experience which no one could copy can make you the best of the best.
So focus on yourself, your game, and your skills instead of running constantly on increasing your ratings which can eventually divert you from becoming a good player.
I hope I have managed to convince you that being a good chess player is not about ratings, or at least it is not all about ratings.