[dmuino]

That's true, I'm 2050-2100 lichess, around 1800 on chess.com. Never played a rated tournament but played some rated players who were 1400-1500 rated USCF, and they were roughly my strength, maybe a bit better. Still the Delta bot, easy mode, was much, much better than me.

[fragmede]

Casually just in the top 2-3 percent of chess players globally world wide humble brag. I'm not that good at it, just a little bit!

[seanyeh]

I think it depends on the pool to which you're comparing. Being top 2% of all programmers is not so impressive if you include everyone who's ever taken an Intro class. Top 2% of people who do it for a living is much more significant.

I'm in a similar boat as the other posters (2050-2100 lichess, 1400 USCF). The median active rating for USCF is around 1200 and likely much higher if you don't include scholastic players, so if we compare against the OTB pool, "2000 lichess" is probably closer to top 50% than 2%

[jmb99]

I mean, if you’re in the top 3 percent of anything, yes that’s pretty good, but not unbelievably so, especially in the field of chess. If for instance you randomly put together a classroom full of chess players, there’s decent odds one of them is better than top 3%. Two classrooms and it’s almost a certainty.

Put another way, looking at chess.com users, there are ~6 million people who would count as the top 3 percent. Difficult to achieve, yes, but if 6 million people can achieve it, it’s not really a “humble brag,” it’s just a statement.

[refulgentis]

It made me smile to hear “I’m only 97th percentile” isn’t a humblebrag. You may be employing an old saw of mine, you can make people* react however you want by leaning on either percentages or whole numbers when you shouldn’t.

* who don’t have strong numeracy and time to think