Groping in the Dark

At what level of play can someone be considered good at chess?

During his lecture at the Spokane Chess Club last on the eve of the Inland Classic, IM John Donaldson was discussing Bobby Fischer's remarkable rise after 1955. Donaldson has written several excellent books on Fischer, most recently Inside the Mind of Bobby Fischer: Revisiting His Writings and Annotations (2025). Fischer's rating in 1955 was mid-1700s. Donaldson mentioned some recent analysis of games from Fischer's first rated event that led to that rating and quipped, "he was not very good". 

In contrast to this critical historical assessment of the early career on one of the greatest chess players ever are innumerable threads in social media asking, for example, whether 1100 is a good rating. Most comments in such threads--this one has more than 350--note that 1100 is well above the average on the site. Similarly, a player near the bottom of the standings in the tournament that we played in this past weekend with a USCF rating in the 900s is at the 59th percentile. That player scored a 500+ point upset in the first round, then lost the rest of his games. These players are offered comfort in the knowledge that they are better than half of all rated players, and substantially better than the majority of casual chess enthusiasts who never enter competition.

My rating just above 1860 puts me at the 94th percentile. I told Donaldson on Sunday morning that his comment about Fischer was helping me come to terms with the fact that I'm not very good and never will be. John did not say much about this remark, but we had several conversations throughout the weekend, including him soliciting my insights into finding historic chess games online and a brief discussion of the writing of John Steinbeck, whose published books I am working my way through.

My perspective is grounded in comments I made last spring about the defects in the play of A-class players (see "Two Donner Quotes") and my sense in round two on Saturday that I was unable to comprehend and correctly assess the positions through much of the game. I believed that I was slightly worse early on, but had provoked some pawn structure weaknesses that were exploitable in the ending. When my B-class opponent blundered, I immediately recognized that my winning chances had become very good. In the brief post-game discussion, he immediately mentioned that terrible move that turned a roughly equal position into one where he was clearly worse.

From the point of view of the elementary students whom I coach, and that of the average USCF player, those of us in A-class are strong. Compared to masters and above, we are quite weak. Maybe we have some knowledge, but we also fall prey to bad habits, misevaluate positions through appalling ignorance, and fail to calculate with any precision.

Stripes,James (1865) -- Lopez,Francisco (1614) [A49]

Inland Classic Spokane Valley (2), 21.02.2026

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nbd2

Black to move

This move does not seem to me particularly strong, but I've been playing it in similar positions online the past few months. My idea is to maintain the flexibility to play e4 or c4, depending on how my opponent responds. Of course, blocking the mobility of the dark-squared bishop should be seen as a loss of tempi. 

I had the Black side of this position in round four, when my opponent played 5.c4 instead of my 5.Nbd2. That game continued 5...0-0 6.0-0 Nbd7 7.Nc3 c5 I was already feeling a bit lost in terms of my understanding of how Black should proceed here. 8...e5 is more common and scores much better.

5...Nc6 6.c3 0-0 7.0-0 e5 8.dxe5 Nxe5

8...dxe5 9.e4 a5 10.Qc2 Be6 11.Rd1 Qc8 0-1 Stavrianakis,I (2316) -- Stojanovic,D (2488) Belgrade Trophy 26th 2012

9.Nxe5 dxe5 10.Qb3 c6 11.Rd1 Qc7

White to move

Black's pieces are more mobile.

12.a4

12.Ne4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Be6 14.Qb4 Rfd8 15.Be3 Rxd1+ 16.Rxd1 Bf8 17.Qa4 a6 18.Qc2 Rd8 19.Rxd8 Qxd8 20.b4 f5 21.Bg2 Qd7 22.a4 ½-½ Lupinski,I -- Remenyi,B Wch U18 Girls 5th Guarapuava 1991 

12...Be6 13.Qc2 Bf5

Black should play 13...a5, neutralizing White's effort to create a weak point.

14.e4 Bg4 15.f3?!

Black to move

15...Be6=

15...Qb6+ 16.Kf1= (16.Kh1 Be6 17.a5 Qf2 18.Rf1 Qe2 19.Qd1 Qxd1 20.Rxd1 Rad8with a slight edge for Black)

16.Nf1

16.a5

16...h6

16...a5

17.a5 Rfd8 18.Be3

White to move

By this point, I was beginning to formulate a plan. When I played 12.a4, the intent was to provoke a weakness on the queenside. Now, the nature of that weakness is coming to light. Even so, this weakness offered me no advantage until my opponent's tactical error.

18...Kh7

18...b6 19.axb6 axb6=

19.Rxd8! Qxd8 20.Qf2 a6

I was optimistic that swapping the heavy pieces would leave Black with a vulnerable b-pawn that my king could threaten. However, if Black's king defends the pawn, it is not clear that I could make progress elsewhere.

20...b6 21.axb6 axb6 22.Rxa8 Qxa8 23.Bxb6 and White is slightly better; 

20...Bf8 21.Nd2=

21.Qe2?!

This move was rooted in shallow calculation and failure to understand the most important elements of the position

21.Nd2 would have been better with the idea of controlling c4.

21...Qe7 22.Bb6 Nd7|

Somehow I overlooked this move.

White to move

23.Be3 Rd8 24.Rd1 Nf8

I was happy for the opportunity to exchange the heavy pieces and continue with a minor piece struggle, thinking that I had some chances to exploit the hole on b6.

25.Rxd8 Qxd8 26.Bb6 Qd6

26...Qb8 27.b4=

27.Qd2 Qe7 28.Qd8

Forcing a minor piece ending (or is the resulting position still a middlegame?

28...Bf6 29.Qxe7

29.Qb8! Bg7 (29...Nd7 30.Qxb7) 30.b4 White may have a slight edge 30...Qd7 31.Bc5 Qc8 32.Qxc8 Bxc8 33.Kf2

29...Bxe7=

White to move

30.Ne3 Nd7 31.Ba7

31.Bc7 f6 32.b4 c5 33.Nd5 Bf8 34.Bf1

31...Bc5

31...Nc5 32.Nd1 Na4 33.Kf1

32.Bxc5 Nxc5 33.Bf1 f6

I expected 33...Nb3 when I tried to work out a line that could give me an advantage.

34...Bc8?!

34...Kg7; 

34...Bxc4 35.Nxc4=]

35.Kf2 White is playing for an advantage, but does not have much chance of winning.

35.b4 Ne6 36.Bxe6 Bxe6

35...Kg7 36.Ke2

36.b4 Na4 37.Nd1

36...Kf8 37.b4 Ne6 38.Ng4

38.Bxe6 might be best 38...Bxe6

38...Kg7 39.Kd3

39.Nf2!

39...Ng5 40.Ke3= 

Black to move

40...Nf7??

40...Bxg4 41.fxg4 Nf7 42.Bxf7 Kxf7 43.Kd3 Ke6 44.Kc4 Kd6 45.h4 h5 46.g5

Black to move

Analysis diagram

46...f5 (46...fxg5?? 47.hxg5 Kd7 48.Kc5 Kc7 49.c4 Kd7 50.Kb6 Kc8 51.b5 axb5 52.cxb5 cxb5 53.Kxb5 Kc7 54.Kc5+-) 47.Kd3 Ke6=

41.Bxf7+- h5

41...Kxf7 42.Nxh6+ Ke6 43.Ng4+-

42.Nxf6

42.Nxe5 fxe5 43.Be8! Bh3 44.f4+-; 

42.Bxg6 hxg4 43.Bh5 gxf3 44.Kxf3+-

42...Kxf7

42...Kxf6 43.Be8 (43.Bb3 was my intended move, but Be8 is better)

43.Nh7 Kg7 44.Ng5 Bd7 45.Kd3 Kf6 46.h4 Ke7 47.Kc4 Kd6 48.f4 exf4 49.gxf4 Bg4 50.Nf7+ Ke7 51.Ne5 Bh3 52.Nxg6+ Kd6 53.Kd4 Bc8 54.f5 Kc7 55.Kc5 Bd7 56.Nf4 Be8 57.e5 1-0

Once I had a clear advantage, I played as if I understood the game. But, my memory of this game lingers as several hours of confusion.