What Elo is beginner
Sort:
400-600 points below your rating is a beginner. When you finally realize this, you will begin to understand the timeless advice that many folks, from club level players to world champions and other super-GM’s, give regarding how to best learn chess.
1800
Feb 28, 2022
0
#64
IMO U1000 is beginner. Intermediate would be 1000-1600, advanced is 1600-2000, expert or master level is anything higher.
This is my opinion based on chess.com ratings.
300-400 is where you have to start practicing tactics (and being very disciplined about avoiding blunders) to win.
AJ_buster: absolutely. To win consistently at 400, you have to be a lot better than most people think.
Mar 1, 2022
0
#68
Okay, look. I have a rating of 300. I have took players of up to 1000 elo before. Your rating just determines how often you win games
Maybe 500+ level players are easier than 300-level players? My last few games against higher-level opponents were fun and evenly matched. The 300-level players are usually much more difficult to beat.
It's possible that players at very low levels are more likely to use intermittent CPU help (because they have less to lose if they're caught.)
Mar 2, 2022
0
#71
Hi! My name is Lauren Goodkind and I’m a respected chess coach and chess YouTuber who helps beginners out :
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP5SPSG_sWSYPjqJYMNwL_Q
Here's my thoughts: Players who are rated below 500 are just beginners. 500 to 800 are more advanced beginners. 900 to 1200 are advanced beginners.
Mar 2, 2022
0
#72
laurengoodkindchess wrote:
Hi! My name is Lauren Goodkind and I’m a respected chess coach and chess YouTuber who helps beginners out :
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP5SPSG_sWSYPjqJYMNwL_Q
Here's my thoughts: Players who are rated below 500 are just beginners. 500 to 800 are more advanced beginners. 900 to 1200 are advanced beginners.
Lauren, are you referring to online or OTB ratings?
Mar 2, 2022
0
#73
Yeah, that's roughly my estimate too. Below 500 blitz is still beginner.
1000 blitz isn't very high in the grand scheme of things, but it's a player who has a fair amount of experience and knowledge above new players, so is definitely beyond "beginner."
Somewhere around 1200-1300 is a tipping point IMO. You can't really get this good by just being one of those people who likes to play from time to time. You've either been playing for years, or you've been studying some things. Either way you're at risk for chess becoming a permanent part of your life 
+1
The_Shashophille wrote:
Okay, look. I have a rating of 300. I have took players of up to 1000 elo before. Your rating just determines how often you win games
ItsMaddening wrote:
ItsMaddening wrote: Maybe 500+ level players are easier than 300-level players? My last few games against higher-level opponents were fun and evenly matched. The 300-level players are usually much more difficult to beat.
It's possible that players at very low levels are more likely to use intermittent CPU help (because they have less to lose if they're caught.)
People love to draw strange conclusions. Usually however, the truth is the obvious that's starring right at you.
Shash, I'm not calling you a liar because I don't know your chess history. On this site though, you've played 81 games. You've won 37 of those and the very highest rated of those 37 was 390. I'm not saying that you definitely haven't beaten players 700 elo points higher than yourself but I will say that I don't think I've ever beaten somebody so much higher rated than myself and I've played a lot more chess than you. As for rating equating simply to win%, that's just complete nonsense.
Mad, your average (rapid) opponent defeated has been rated 419. Your average opponent when drawn has been 446. Average player who has beaten you has been 485. Lower rated players play worse. Lower rated players cheat less. It's just that simple. Don't overthink it.
Mar 3, 2022
0
#76
Game_of_Pawns wrote:
The_Shashophille wrote:
Okay, look. I have a rating of 300. I have took players of up to 1000 elo before. Your rating just determines how often you win games
ItsMaddening wrote:
ItsMaddening wrote: Maybe 500+ level players are easier than 300-level players? My last few games against higher-level opponents were fun and evenly matched. The 300-level players are usually much more difficult to beat.
It's possible that players at very low levels are more likely to use intermittent CPU help (because they have less to lose if they're caught.)
People love to draw strange conclusions. Usually however, the truth is the obvious that's starring right at you.
Shash, I'm not calling you a liar because I don't know your chess history. On this site though, you've played 81 games. You've won 37 of those and the very highest rated of those 37 was 390. I'm not saying that you definitely haven't beaten players 700 elo points higher than yourself but I will say that I don't think I've ever beaten somebody so much higher rated than myself and I've played a lot more chess than you. As for rating equating simply to win%, that's just complete nonsense.
Mad, your average (rapid) opponent defeated has been rated 419. Your average opponent when drawn has been 446. Average player who has beaten you has been 485. Lower rated players play worse. Lower rated players cheat less. It's just that simple. Don't overthink it.
I am referring to games outside of chess.com. You can believe it and you can just not believe it, that's up to you.
Mar 3, 2022
0
#77
idk about beginner but for pro its always going to be one win above what you are at
Mar 3, 2022
0
#78
Playing for a year: barely 600. 1500 games, but I guess Im still a beginner. And probably will be forever.
Everybody is a prodigy. "Hey, I've been playing for ten minutes, and I'm 1850!"
Give me a break
Who cares about ELO ratings are stupid. It’s becomes a peeing contest
Everyone is a beginner in Chess <2000 even higher
Why? Because the game is ludicrously long and a difficult time sink. We’re all in the same boat and there’s always bigger fish
So essentially a beginner is a person that just played their first game and a person whose been playing for 20+ plus years.
So try to enjoy the process instead.
Everyone is a beginner in Chess <2000 even higher
Why? Because the game is ludicrously long and a difficult time sink. We’re all in the same boat and there’s always bigger fish
So essentially a beginner is a person that just played their first game and a person whose been playing for 20+ plus years.
So try to enjoy the process instead.
Game_of_pawns: Not following your argument.
I'm saying that 300-level players are a lot better than they really should be.
At the least, they're a lot better than people tend to "label" them as being.
We act like 300-level players are complete newbies. Like they're the equivalent of playing your grandma.
But 300-level players, despite being in the bottom decile of chess.com players, are insanely good by absolute standards. They've all played 30+ games of chess.
(I'd even argue that the standard advice of "don't blunder pieces," "take free pieces," etc. isn't enough to consistently win at that level.)
Anyway, what I'm really sick of is the labeling of sub-500 players (or sub-700, or whatever) as "easy to beat." They're really not easy to beat for the vast majority of people.
I'm saying that 300-level players are a lot better than they really should be.
At the least, they're a lot better than people tend to "label" them as being.
We act like 300-level players are complete newbies. Like they're the equivalent of playing your grandma.
But 300-level players, despite being in the bottom decile of chess.com players, are insanely good by absolute standards. They've all played 30+ games of chess.
(I'd even argue that the standard advice of "don't blunder pieces," "take free pieces," etc. isn't enough to consistently win at that level.)
Anyway, what I'm really sick of is the labeling of sub-500 players (or sub-700, or whatever) as "easy to beat." They're really not easy to beat for the vast majority of people.
I think that the percentile is more meaningful than the rating, particularly since the explosion in the number of rapid rated players over the last couple of years......1300 puts you in the top 10% so thats more than a beginner IMO.
How about - top 5% elite
75 -95% advanced
50 - 75% intermediate
30-50% novice
0-30% beginner
Just a suggestion. Everyone's opinion differs and is equally valid.