Beginners? Really?

idk what coolout means by "one of those accs" tbh but he did mention alt acc so that was my guess

His very first game was a loss dropping him about half-way from 1200 to 800.  That is exactly what happens when you lose your first game after being initialized to 1200.

So he chose 1200.

You choose a description that you think applies to you and that gives you a rating.  Any starting rating on any site can be unreliable for the first games due to people not necessarily knowing what their strength really is compared to others on the site.

You have started from 1 200 rating level which is not a lowest possible rating. If you have chosen 400 (you should've answered "New to chess" when asked "what is your level of play?" to get this rating), you would get lower rated opponents from the start.

Now, I've looked at your games. Both you and your opponents are novice players. You can see that because both players are randomly moving pieces in the opening, pushing pawns etc. You will encounter some cheaters but this will not happen too often.

It is just that you are making even more mistakes than they do.If you wish to improve, you need to learn opening principles and follow them, and try not to lose pieces for free. Once you master this you will be able to progress further.

Try not to be bothered by defeats, especially now.

Here is the quote:

"Much of my experience has told me that "beginners" are cheating. "

And that is completely wrong.

In any case, most of them are playing normally for that level - rather badly. I've checked several of his games. It is just that he is below 400 now so most of them are just a bit better. If he works on his game, and builds some basic play by developing pieces in the opening and trying hard not to outright hang pieces, it will get better. But that takes some time.

If two people have different definitions of what a beginner is then one of them may feel that the other is making a misrepresentation.

Some people take longer to transition from the "new at chess" level to "beginner" and some of those may not realize it if they are primarily playing in person against others that are "new at chess". (I thought "beginner" started at 800 and the OP started at 1200).

When I was in elementary school I played for a while and reviewed a basic tactics book until I reached the point where I could beat the family's "master-level" player (actually I'd guess his strength as about a 500 US Chess rating but he could beat anybody in the family and neighborhood).  I figured that as long as I had mating material I would win the game (not "could" but "would" - young kids can easy get overconfident without realizing it and crushing high school age casual players at the YMCA just reinforced that overconfidence).  When I reached middle school I finally met players that I could not beat easily and when I reached high school I ran across players that could beat me (my first rating was in the 700s).  If I had estimated my strength as a kid I would have honestly (erroneously but honestly erroneous) said one step below professional and if that estimate was done on Chess.com I would have been assigned 1600 (with about 1000 points to be dropped before reaching a realistic rating).

Another thing is selection bias.  In the US a 300 strength player would be better than 97% of the population (maybe 98%) even though that beginner would be in the bottom 10%(?) of the US population that plays rated chess (much lower than 10% if limited to adults that play rated chess).  Anybody that hasn't happened to play rated players would see themselves as very strong in relation to the general population even if they were very weak in relation to the population playing chess seriously.  The first time such a player plays serious opponents there is a risk of culture shock and of being blind-sided by an apparently very different definition of what "beginner" means.

I get that cultural shock thing. I played casually while in elementary school. After 20 years I have joined and had no idea what to input. I never played tournaments or something similar so I just had no idea about my real rating. I settled with second lowest setting and started from 800. It turned out that I was probably closer to 1200 as I was at that rating 2-3 weeks later. But I guess I've picked almost the right setting by accident. 

I doubt the improved part, if you go dormant for a while you can get more rating from winning so that might have happened

yeah have fun keeping that rating once you play against an actual 1.5k+ 

Y’all are just roasting his chess skill now

I started playing chess when I was seven because a doctor told my mom it would help with my very poor concentration. I played chess several times a week with my dad and sister for several years. When I got to high school I thought that I would be plenty good to join the chess team. I found out that I might as well have started playing the week before because I didn't know anything. I knew how the pieces moved and that's about it. I'm sure if I had bothered to learn to play online, I would've put intermediate and been similarly shocked at how bad I was.

Someone can be a beginner here at chess.com, but be an old chess player.

I can notice if someone is a beginner if he/she does many blunders.

They usually  try  the Scholar's Mate.

Seriously, there's no need to roast the poor guy. He was just like me. He thought he knew chess but it turns out he didn't.

With a scholar's mate opening (like many players I discovered it all by myself and initially thought it was my own innovation) I held down the top board at my junior high school (ages 12-15) about 50 years ago and was the strongest junior high player in the city of 60,000 people.  Moving on to real openings let me get stronger than about 600 strength (my tactics were already stronger which is how I survived with such a poor opening and my results kept me from seeing just how poor the scholar's mate opening was).

PS I have run across a number of older chess players (over 60 years old) that play at the beginner level or weaker as well as a number of younger adults that are also just starting to go into tournament chess.

He made claims that his opponents are cheating, when he doesn't take mate in one.. but instead blunders his queen on that very next move. Truth hurts.

I was rusty since I was focused on playing another game and then one after that. Is it really that hard to believe I reached my peak again after coming back? I also enjoy Chess more again now that I took such a big break from it and it really helps my play. 

During that time away I did not play on another website or account.

Every second post you type "the other website". Blah blah blah. Are you a shill or something?

I left chess for about three years in the late '70s (after college) and then came back.  After a month of playing in person my OTB rating shot up about 300 rating points in a matter of four tournaments (about 20 games) finally going over 2000.