Beginner?

Should somebody be called a beginner based on rating or number of games played?

I figured this question was worded better than the other similar one.

Then what should I call myself? I suck WAY too hard to be an intermediate.

That makes everyone a beginner for all of 5 minutes.

I would say it has more to do with how long you've been playing.

So how many games does it take? If you don't have a high rating, what do you call yourself?

Woodshover?

I am a beginner. Woodshover, you are a beginner.

This is a first for Estragon. He has it all wrong. ;)

Knowing the rules of play found in a cardboard chess set along with playing the game does not advance one to the intermediate level.

To answer the question of who a beginner is, one must know what it takes to become an intermediate player. The majority of beginners will never know the answer to that question.

Into my second year, I'm beginning to get the idea of what it takes to become an intermediate player.

Perhaps an advanced chess player could answer your question. I certainly can't.  I've awakened at 3 a.m. a few times with that "Eureka, I've got it!"  moment. After spending an hour writing my thoughts down...well...none of it makes much sense the next day. Chess is hard.

I hope you found my post illuminating. 

IMO there are too many levels of chess skill to divide it into "beginner, intermediate, advanced."  Probably the most practical way of categorizing yourself is simply in relation to the pool of players you face... meaning you're better than "these people" and worse than "those people."

Among professional players, anyone below 2400 FIDE or so is a beginner.  Among the average US citizen anyone around 1300 is an unbeatable chess machine.  So you have to reference yourself in terms of how good you want to eventually be.

Maybe in more objective terms, you could set a goal of always checking for checks and captures on every move, always checking for an annoying response from your opponent when considering a move, and so in general seeing how often you drop pieces for nothing.  Dan Heisman suggests this is the biggest difference in skill among players below 1600.

I'd be happy with being an unbeatable chess machine.

Pro players see under 2400 as beginner? That would make Dan Heisman a beginner in their eyes. Is it really that easy for a 2400+ player to beat a 2200+ player?  I don't know. Perhaps an IM can answer that question.

1600 USCF is a number that Heisman mentions often, and is most likely the very beginning of intermediate level play.

• 2400 and above: Senior Master
• 2200–2399 plus 300 games above 2200: Original Life Master
• 2200–2399: National Master
• 2000–2199: Expert
• 1800–1999: Class A
• 1600–1799: Class B
• 1400–1599: Class C
• 1200–1399: Class D
• 1000–1199: Class E
• 800-999: Class F
• 600-799: Class G
• 400-599: Class H
• 200-399: Class I
• 100-200: Class J

Well below 2400 as a beginner is a bit of hyperbole but an IM seeing FM-level players as someone (s)he can beat at will is true. My coach is an IM. People who know better than me about such things tell me he's got a chance of making GM. He uses tournament games against 2200 - 2300 level players to test out his opening ideas and assorted novelties and has a strongly plus record doing so. What makes him a particularly fun coach is that he will try out his students' pet opening lines in such games! He really is that confident that he will win.

------ I don't know but I think you people are making much ado about nothing --- and confusing the issue 

--- you are confusing the concept of beginning with the concept of winning 

-- as then you could then assume that the number of games played or the number of years played ( experience )  -- would then have a bearing on the rating ????

-- I am sure that when he was young and when he only had a few games under his belt -- Bobby Fischer probably beat - lots and lots and lots of people who played for years and who had high chess ratings and I think for Bobby Fischer well that wasn't bad " for a beginner "

-- there is the thing of talent , skill progression , aptitude and other variables

-- some people continually learn but as for me I think I have reached my chess apex - and that doesn't bother me 

If you still fall for scholars and fools mate you are a beginner. :D

If you're in a room with grandmasters, you're a beginner. If you're in a room with 1600s, you're not bad. Isn't it just context?

Your level of play determines where you fall.

You can play 10,000 games and still suck...so number of games played makes no sense. 

Your rating will give a closer indication as to your level of play.

YES.

That's an amazing level of confidence. Thanks for the post. You're most fortunate to have an IM as a coach!

@ OrangeHonda - What were you thinking during your recent bullet match against a NM with the Black pieces?  You missed opportunities to check your opponent's king with plenty of time in a bullet game to check for checks, captures and threats, like Dan Hesiman preaches!  

Playing chess at that speed is completely beyond my understanding. You could have given the NM a much harder time with 21...Bh5+.  

I haven't played bullet on this site in around 6 months, and I don't remember the last time I played a NM online :)

The level of chess in the bullet games you can find of mine though should be between silly and poor.  After viewing any of my games I recommend quickly playing over a quality game in an attempt to counter any bad patterns and ideas you may have picked up

You played two bullet games against a National Master on May 2, 2010. One with White, the other with Black. That WAS a long time ago.

Excellent tip. I will erase all of the bad patterns that I saw in your games.

Oh, after my membership expired I can't view my long lost games anymore.  I don't remember any NMs... maybe they registered as an NM after the game and now it shows up?  I do remember one guy squishing me surprisingly easily in 2-3 games... was it that samurichess guy (can't remember exact name).  Yeah, I looked over those a few times after I lost wondering how I lost so easily.

After all the bullet ratings jumped up I bet he's something like 2500 now.

[Edit]  To answer your original question though, I was playing my usual blitz "patterns" (I call it "playing your patterns", shurg*) and just lost without really knowing what hit me.  I'm sure I missed checks and captures, but it was bullet and they didn't show up in my initial patterns so they were "off my radar" so to speak.

Also, when I start to lose, I'll speculate with odd moves to try to throw them off.  Against much better players though, they don't get confused in the least, and will crush me easily.

I agree.