What Elo is beginner

Lol

much lolz

Hi guys im just recently starting to show some interest in chess anybody wanna play a match ( im a beginner) :peaceful

I am a confused beginner or intermediate player.   I started playing more seriously a few months after the Queen's Gambit show came out and found in humbling fashion that I could only maintain a rating around 500 on chess.com.  After a couple thousand games, and some study, I'm now able to maintain a rating around 800 rapid here, which is clearly still a beginner . . .  but if I set the engine to level 11 which claims to be around 1500 rating, well into the "Intermediate" category on the slider, or if I play other engines that claim to be at 1500, I can beat them sometimes.  I can usually beat an engine set to 1200, and I absolutely can't imagine being able to beat a player with 1200 rapid at chess.com nearly as easily.  It seems like ratings tend to be lower early on in chess.com and then higher later on; for example there are players above 2900 here on chess.com but Magnus Carlsen is only rated 2800.

Kevin,

Online ratings and over the board international and national ratings are two different things. Most grandmasters who play online have ratings of 2900+ online, while their international over the board ratings (FIDE ratings) are significantly lower. This is normal.

As for engine ratings, those are just estimates. Engines don’t play like humans and to make weak engine play (like “1500”), the creators make the engine randomly make bad moves throughout the game while making good moves the rest of the time. It’s common for humans to beat “stronger” rated engines in these circumstances and I completely recommend playing humans instead of weak engines.

To me a beginner is a player who has significant lack of fundamentals in chess that prevents them from avoiding losing material without just cause (leaving pieces undefended or under defended) and missing opponents doing the same frequently, and unable to play with a proper understanding of what to be trying to do in each position (lack of opening principles, unable to understand what a positions objectives should be, not sure how to make a reasonable plan in a position), with little understanding of common chess terminology and concepts. What online rating that is may vary some depending on site rating system and time formats, but certainly after 1400 rating you have to have a reasonable grasp of the above and no longer are a beginner in chess.

Right, very well saidjg777chess.  I am a beginner in all the ways you describe and frequently lose material without justification or miss out on opportunities to win material without cost to myself, and my understanding of the goals and plan which makes sense in each position has only barely begun to develop.  I know the terminology and have a basic understanding of the meanings of common terms like absolute and relative pin, fork, skewer, revealed attacks, pawn breaks, mating nets, open or closed positions in terms of pawn structure, open and semi-open ranks, files and diagonals, positional or tactical compensation for sacrifices, etc. etc. -- but actually being able to put these concepts into play is another thing entirely, when for example an enemy piece might have the opportunity to move away to an undefended square in order to open a line for a bishop behind it which I didn't see prior to planning on moving a piece into the same diagonal where it then becomes immediately pinned to my queen on the next move by the enemy bishop, without them even having to move the bishop.  International masters seem like they see that kind of thing almost instantly and build their plans around it with no more time spent on the clock than it takes me to notice a knight who just moved to attack my queen directly.

1200 has historically been viewed as competent, which I guess means intermediate, as opposed to novice. A true beginner needs to confirm which square the queen starts on. 

hey, me almost a year later i think, i was like 9 when i wrote that, i think im still a serious beginner, my ego has kinda gone down a bit, but im like 800 now so yay

beginner until you stop dropping pieces.

I think at the level that you won't hang a piece when there is no tactic happening on the board in most of your games. probably 1800 in chess.com rapid rating.

Why can't I reply to specific comments?

'Beginner' is an unfortunate term. It implies a chess journey that not everyone has the time, inclination, or perhaps ability to take. Many people will have been playing and enjoying chess socially for years without reaching an ELO of 1000. Something like pre-intermediate, elementary or casual-player would be better.    

As a beginner, I think you have to define what a beginner is. I think Chess is a continuous learning experience from raw novice to grandmaster. To try and get better.... It won't happen without trying unless you're gifted. You have to not miss easy opportunities..... And not make simple mistakes.... To be not a beginner in my book. It's as much about how you play as what you know, or what you're capable of. I'd say the beginner lacks the ability to play an opening reasonably well for a couple moves..... And lacks the ability to complete simple common end games . They just hack at the mid game..... Because that's where the excitement seems to be. But that's only one third of chess. Based on my experience I would say you're probably somewhere in the 900 -1200 before you're not a beginner, You're actively learning and improving.... Not just pushing pieces around the board.

Im still a beginner btw.....i havent learned much.

I've been current playing for just over a year now and I'm stuck between 750 and 850 but what I don't understand is that I'm losing to players that are knocking out 95 accuracy I can't compete with that how am I suppose to climb the ratings

I'd say 900 is when somebody stops being a beginner on chess.com.   If you don't advance past 900, you just are lacking skill.

When you stop consistently making one-move blunders imo, I’m still working to get past that point!

as has been said many times in many threads beginner is a measure time not of skill. my grandfather plays every week with friends and has been playing since the time botvinnik was champion but he lacks skill and does not study. he is also not as sharp as he once was and at 1100 rapid i beat him easily though sometimes i will let a blunder pass. to call him a beginner is to not understand basic definitions of simple concepts

The number can be misleading on chess sites and apps. An expert player could have few wins and be rated low. Better maybe to combine the rating with number of games played. A 1300 player with 1,000 games played is a good player.

You're a beginner until you've been playing for a while, at least a year or so. After that, if you still have a low rating, you're just a bad chess player.