What Elo is beginner

I answered the question on this topic a year and a half ago, and to this day my opinion of myself has remained unchanged: I still consider myself a beginner.

I still keep making stupid blunders, I alternate some good games with indecent ones, I defend in a very bad way - another indicator of being a beginner ( let the experts tell me if I'm wrong ).

So, in my personal perspective, I should still improve a lot before I can think I've moved on to a higher level ("intermediate") . I'd say 1500 by convention to celebrate the leap in quality.

900 or 1000

I would say your already at intermediate level, this site is full os experienced players, so you can add 200 eilo to your current elo anywhere else.

The fact this site would be "full of experienced players" has nothing to do with a difference there would be between chess.com ratings and, for an example, the FIDE ratings.

What I commonly read and tend to believe, is that the Chess.com Rapid rating is in average, overrated by 200-300(?) Elo points above the FIDE classical rating.

This is more (if a rating will turn out to be under or overrated) a matter of technicalities, like what's the minimal rating, and other such things. Nothing to do with players being good or bad, experienced or unexperienced.

Btw, what's in your opinion the average experience in real (OTB) competition chess of most players on here? I'd say it tends to be very poor. Many online players do hit a wall whenever they try out real chess competition on the board... One reason be, there is not just chess in chess competition. but also technicalities (again) to become familiar with.

It feels kind of insulting to be called a beginner when I've been playing for years and years.

I'd rather it be said that I have no great talent or skill for the game because that's much more accurate. There's no shame in that. A "beginner" is someone who's not long started playing chess. That's really all it means. You could play for a month with no study and still understand the game better than many long time players if you have natural talent. The term beginner has nothing to do with skill or ability.

Fide players that are otb are generally very serous about the game in a professional sense and thus stronger then your casual online chess player. My opinion is geared more towards online chess as a whole. 1,000 eilo here feels 1300 eilo everywhere else online imo. Some people play much stronger otb then online as well. I play easily 400 elo better in person. otb.

Well, won't you agree that a way to tell someone do play such as you described about yourself "no talent no skill" can be to say you do play "like a beginner"?

And don't you think that when you claim "no shame in that" it's just you deciding there is no shame in that? Because for what I know, and part of it is mockeries I've endured in my teen age (cruel age), is that most people around you, will think "Oh? Still at that low level after so many years?" even if they don't say it to your face.

You're free, of course, to play without learning anything much from your games, for centuries in a row if you like. But you don't get to decide the standarts of what's honourable or shamefull in that regard, I'd say. That's more a matter of convention (about language), and the general convention does not say what you say.

But never mind me. I'm just babling.

Thx for the reply, but it's kinda obscure to me, and I'm not sure it's very clear to you.

I mean its all kinda obscure I guess I'm just saying 1200 elo on here isn't a beginner I would say its intermediate. The pool of players are playing very frequently and have access to tools that can really strengthen their play. Otb play has a lot of rules that need learned for sure. I feel that 800 here is beginner. Your stats are impressive bty I wish I could be as good.

The pool of players is sure different.

The ratings on here are far from accurate, as someone said already, I've lost to people here who were below 400 and likewise beaten people rated way higher then that. As far as raw beginner, I always thought it was someone rated 500 and 1200 is beginning intermediate or maybe advanced beginner. Likewise I'd say that 1500 or 1600 is an advanced intermediate player, and probably 17-19 is obviously advanced and as you may or may not know, 2000 is considered an "expert", 2200, is a Master and so on.

I guess its hard cause I play some here that only are ranked 1250, but then pull 1800 level performance at 90 % accuracy, then I play 1250 to 1300 that blunder their queen or let me pin them quite easily. I think the growing popularity of rapid here has definitely made the entire group stronger by virtue of practice, popularity of the site through youtube and streamers that average players can learn complex attacking lines from, and by use of playing the strong bots on site that certainly can improve the average players.

Well said, thank you.

For those of you who've not seen it enough to recognise it, this is what a well balanced and normal take from a well adjusted adult looks like. Not everybody is an insecure teenager.

... Nor is obsessed with the idea of winning.

I do try to learn from my games and improve and over the years, I think I have. I'm certainly better than when I started playing.

And no, there's no shame in not being all that great at playing a board game. Most people play chess for fun after all. It's not a big deal and I still enjoy the game regardless.

Around 700 I guess

I see your point. But I've got doubts about how right your idea of "great" is, when you seem to name so some below average level in chess. No offense meant pal.

(But my own idea of "average" might be some outdated, when it used to be, before the online chess, a good 1600 FFE in France (and there was no ratings under 1000), which was not possible to compare to the FIDE ratings when it began at 2000...)

Beginner-intermediate-advanced-expert... It's clear that it is a scale of skills and ability, so even the first term ( beginner ) in this context should be understood in this sense. "Beginner" in the sense of someone who is still at the beginning of a path, i.e. in an early stage. If the road you have taken is 100 km long and you have only covered 5 km ( It doesn't matter how long it took ) , you are still at the beginning, don't you think ?

Anyway, if the term "beginner" sound offensive, let's replace it with another one ( "basic", maybe? ). The substance does not change. Despite the progress I've made since I could only move pieces or a little more, I still consider myself a basic-level player, taking into account my current limitations in the game.

A small objection to @wishiwereficher , too:
To be honest, if 85-90% of the players here play like me, I don't think there are many experienced players in proportion to the total number. I'd say that they are no more than 5%. And now, too, we need to understand what is meant by "experienced".

But it's a matter of perspective, as usual.

Yep, I touched on this, idk if you play fighting games but the same thing goes on there, we have a word for it there, it's called "smurfing".