Are 1500s actually good, or just better beginners?

I am 200 and I think 1500s are super advanced

If you play the atomic, 1500s is a good rating. It is better than ~80% players.
https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/atomic

@RemRus said ^

What do you think?

If a player has played 50 games and has 1500, he is a good rookie.
If a player has played 1000 games and has a rating of 1500, he is stuck in development.

*they

@Iateadogyesterday said ^

I recently went through many games played by 1500-1600s, and the sheer variance of game quality is wild. As a 2050 elo player it makes me wonder, what does it actually mean to be good at chess? Is 1500 elo really a respectable milestone, or are 1500s just better beginners who understand the game a bit better? What do you think?

On the other chess website, reaching 1500 is a pretty good achievement. Here a 1500 is just a little improved beginner, nothing more,

I have been playing chess for 8 years (with coaching) and am still stuck below 1200, so idk

@Larakepara said ^

I have been playing chess for 8 years (with coaching) and am still stuck below 1200, so idk

I think you need to change coach.

I think you need to change coach.

thx, that could actually be it

@Larakepara said ^

I think you need to change coach.

thx, that could actually be it

Well, how exactly are you training? How exactly are you losing in your games? When I first started playing, I played almost exclusively bullet. Might be a questionable habit, but my vision grew so quickly. That's how I was able to see where the pieces move without thinking, see the other side of the board too without thinking. Only once the basics become obvious can you master things like not hanging pieces and not missing tactics.

@Anon1mouse said ^

Well, how exactly are you training? How exactly are you losing in your games? When I first started playing, I played almost exclusively bullet. Might be a questionable habit, but my vision grew so quickly. That's how I was able to see where the pieces move without thinking...

Thanks. That makes sense, that's useful. I mainly play blitz because I have to but I what you mean, it would be better to play longer games, I also used to play more rapid games (and my rapid rating is higher than my blitz rating) and maybe more puzzles would also be better.

Yup. What I mean is, bullet chess really helped me get better at first, like around 1500 rapid, by letting me have a vision of the board and a good understanding of the pieces. After that your progress transitions from not losing to trying to win. What I mean is, although my games are still often decided by tactics and hanged pieces, if you win you have to stop hanging pieces yourself and try to push your opponents to mistakes. I should probably do more puzzles, but I think it is best to work on easier puzzles. After all, in a 10 minute game would you really spend minutes thinking like you would in a very hard puzzle? Simple puzzles let you practice spotting your opponent's blunders easily, so like maybe click -500 or -300 rating in puzzles rating. I also like puzzle storm because it is timed, kind of like in a real game. I am 1800 rapid, and the difference between me and a 1900 player is that the 1900 blunders pieces and mate just a little bit less, manages time a little bit better (like thinking when it's your opponents turn), etc. Small things make a big difference.

Anyways, take me and my rambling with a grain of salt, I'm not that good either and what worked for me might not necessarily work for you.