What Is the Average Chess Rating?
Across casual online players, the average chess rating sits roughly in the 800–1200 range — most people who play chess for fun, without regular study, land somewhere in that band and stay there. Serious tournament players and titled players sit far above that, and the two groups should not be compared on the same scale.
Why "the average rating" is a slippery question
There is no single average chess rating, because "average" depends entirely on who is included in the sample. A few groups produce very different averages:
- All registered accounts on a big online site, including people who played five games years ago and never returned — this pulls the average down, since many accounts never get past the initial calibration games.
- Active, regularly playing online players — a meaningfully higher number, since this group has actually put in repetitions.
- FIDE-rated tournament players — a self-selected group of people serious enough to travel to and pay for over-the-board events, which pushes the average up again.
When people cite "the average chess rating," they are almost always talking about one of these very different populations without saying so, which is why the number you hear ranges so widely depending on the source.
Casual players vs. serious/FIDE players
The most useful split is casual vs. serious. Casual players — the majority of anyone who has ever opened a chess app — mostly plateau somewhere in the 800–1200 range because they play without deliberately studying tactics, openings, or endgames. Serious players who study and play rated tournaments regularly push well past that, often into the 1400–1800 range within a few years, and dedicated competitive players go further still.
FIDE-rated players are a different population entirely. Most FIDE-rated players sit below 2000, and only a small fraction ever cross into title territory — 2300 for FIDE Master, 2400 for International Master, 2500 (plus norms) for Grandmaster. If you are comparing your online rating to a friend's FIDE rating, you are comparing two different scales, not just two different numbers.
There is also a meaningful middle group worth naming: players who play online seriously — studying tactics, reviewing losses, following a real repertoire — but have never played a FIDE-rated event. This group often lands in the 1400–1800 range on Chess.com or Lichess, well above the casual average, without ever having a FIDE number at all. Their strength is real, but it is only measured on one of the two scales.
Rating bands and where the average sits
| Band | What it represents | Typical mistakes |
|---|---|---|
| Under 800 | New or very casual player. | Hangs pieces most games. |
| 800–1200 | Roughly where most casual players average out. | Occasional hung pieces; shaky endgames. |
| 1200–1600 | Regular player who has studied at least tactics. | Calculation errors; loses the thread in quiet positions. |
| 1600–2000 | Strong club player, well above the casual average. | Small inaccuracies rather than blunders. |
| 2000+ | Expert and above — a small fraction of all rated players. | Errors are rare; margins are thin. |
Notice how far below 2000 the casual average sits. If your rating is anywhere in the 1000s, you are already meaningfully above the average casual player — the perception that "everyone" is 1500+ online mostly comes from vocal, serious players being overrepresented in chess content and forums.
It is also worth noting how top-heavy the distribution is once you move past the casual average. The jump from 1200 to 1600 involves a large, active population of regular hobbyist players, but the population thins out considerably above 1800, and thins out again sharply above 2000. Each additional 200 points past the casual average represents a smaller and smaller slice of all rated players, which is part of why titled players are treated as a genuinely rare achievement rather than just "a bit better than average."
Why average rating feels higher than it is
Most people who talk about chess ratings online, in videos, or in forums are the serious players — the ones rated 1600, 1800, 2000+. That is a selection effect: the people posting about chess tend to be the people who are good at it and enjoy discussing it. The much larger, quieter population of casual players rated 600–1000 rarely posts rating screenshots or strategy content, so their existence is easy to forget.
This creates a common but false impression that the "average" rating is much higher than it actually is, and it is a major source of the "am I bad at chess" anxiety that shows up in beginner forums. If you are new and rated under 1000, you are not behind some invisible average — you are close to it. Chess-adjacent media, including popular streamers and puzzle-rush leaderboards, also skews heavily toward strong players, which reinforces the same illusion from a different direction.
Why the "average" you hear quoted keeps changing
If you have seen different numbers cited for "the average rating" at different times, that is not necessarily a contradiction. A few real reasons the figure moves:
- Growth in new signups — a wave of brand-new accounts, common after a viral chess moment or a popular streamer's tournament, temporarily pulls the all-accounts average down, since new players start low.
- Rating system recalibrations — platforms occasionally adjust their rating formulas or floors, shifting the whole distribution up or down without any player actually getting better or worse.
- Which time control is being measured — bullet, blitz, rapid, and classical pools each have their own separate average, and they are not interchangeable.
Because of this, treat any single cited "average rating" figure as a rough snapshot rather than a fixed fact, and pay more attention to the band it falls in than the exact number.
There is also a well-documented pattern across most online platforms: bullet and blitz ratings tend to average slightly lower than rapid ratings for the same population, because faster time controls introduce more clock-driven mistakes and reward reflexes over deep thought. If you are looking at an "average rating" figure without knowing which time control it describes, assume it is not directly comparable to your own rating in a different time control.
Moving past the average
If your goal is simply to move past the casual average, the path is well-worn: consistent slow games, daily tactics, and reviewing your own losses. Speed is usually the biggest lever here — players who only play 1-minute bullet tend to plateau near the casual average because fast games reward reflexes over understanding, while players who commit to 10-minute-or-longer games give themselves room to actually think and improve.
Our guides on improving from 800 to 1200 and the broader how to improve at chess overview cover this in more depth. For a concrete first milestone, reaching 1000 Elo is a realistic target that puts you solidly above the casual average within a matter of weeks to a couple of months of regular play, and it is worth deliberately tracking your chess progress as you go so you know the effort is actually paying off rather than just guessing.
It also helps to stop measuring yourself against "the average" at all once you have a basic sense of where you stand, and instead measure against your own rating history. The average is a useful one-time orientation point — it tells you roughly where the bulk of casual players sit — but from that point forward, the number that actually matters is whether this month's rating is higher than last month's. Chasing a moving population average is a much less useful goal than beating your own prior results.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the average chess rating on Chess.com?
Across all registered accounts, the average tends to sit fairly low — roughly in the 600–900 range — because it includes many accounts that played only a handful of calibration games and never returned. Among players who play somewhat regularly, the effective average is higher, likely somewhere in the 800–1200 band. Because the exact figure shifts over time and by time control, treat any precise number you see cited with some skepticism and focus on the band instead.
What is the average Lichess rating?
Lichess ratings tend to run somewhat higher than Chess.com ratings for a comparable skill level, partly because of differences in the rating system and player pool, so the average there is generally a bit above what you would see on Chess.com. As with any platform, the "all accounts" average is pulled down by inactive accounts, while the average among regular players is meaningfully higher.
What is the average FIDE rating?
Most FIDE-rated players sit below 2000, since FIDE ratings are earned through classical over-the-board tournament play, which is a smaller and more dedicated population than casual online chess. The vast majority of rated adult club players fall somewhere in the 1200–1800 range, with only a small fraction reaching Expert (2000) or title thresholds like FIDE Master at 2300. Because everyone with a FIDE rating has chosen to play sanctioned tournament chess, this average sits meaningfully above the average across all casual online accounts.
Is 1000 above average in chess?
Among casual online players broadly, 1000 is around or somewhat above the typical range, especially once you account for the many accounts that never play beyond their first few calibration games. It is a reasonable, solid rating for someone still building fundamentals. It is well below the level of a serious club or FIDE-rated player, but those are different comparison groups entirely.
