What Elo is beginner

Yea so u got stuck in the og naruto eh?

Yea, then my idiot self fell down to 300 hell. The "10 games before rating reveal" was much better. The mobile app still uses the same rating system listed above, tho.

from the looks of it your stuck in that one episode of shippuden where sakura did something.

You went back 800 though lol

It was an entire arc dude

That was a hard mountain to climb.

Ngl, she was still useless in Boruto, but not as useless now, compared to the og.

From what I remember, she healed Sasuke

I hope this will clarify everything

If thats true then something like 94% of players on this site are class D and below........

Anyone below 2200 is technically considered an "amatuer," but obviously it's a little inappropriate to call a 2150 rated player such a term. Most commonly, the terms used are like this. 0-1000 beginner 1000-1200 late beginner/adept 1200-1500 intermediate 1500-1800 2nd intermediate 1800-2000 advanced 2000-2199 expert Once you get to about expert chess becomes less about tactical blunders and more about who is playing the correct and more dangerous plan in the position.

An "amateur" is anybody who isn't paid to be doing something. Again, not directly related to any rating that they may have.

I don't think citing dictionary definitions of what a 'beginner' means is in the spirit of addressing the OPs question.

If a "beginner" is defined as "someone who has started learning to do something and cannot do it very well yet" (source: collins dictionary). What is your criterium for doing something "very well"? 

At some point or another, you probably have to evoke some kind of skill/strength or experience threshold rather than simply time spent. When I first started playing chess in 2019, I bottomed out around 625 after one month. Within six months or so, I was at 1500. Am I still a beginner at that point? What about someone who has spent 9 months playing but is 700? This is why I'd side with the camp who leans on playing strength as the primary defining factor more so than time.

Back to the OPs question, it's been answered already, but in terms of chess terminology, most tournaments, books or material aimed at "Beginners" is typically for those U1200. Why? Unclear. This is probably a combination of this being the rating range in which players start to transition away from the scenarios where one move mistakes decide most games. It would not be a good use of a 'beginners' time to study strategy books aimed at intermediates, if the product of that strategy is to have a nice position but then you blunder that advantage away on the next move by giving away free material. Between that and as someone else said previously, these 'categories' were probably large in part defined when most players played OTB and took chess a little bit more seriously vs nowadays when you have a lot of people joining online, which is largely a lot of casual players who have significantly diversified the player pool with even more variance in abilities.

Some words/terms/definitions are supposed to be exact/specific. The freezing point of water of zero degrees Celsius.

Some words/terms/definitions are supposed to be vague/open to interpretation. Five degrees Celsius is cold.

A chess specific rating or rating bracket is exact and precise, such as "1565 FIDE". A vague general everyday term applied to somebody's chess ability is not exact, such as "beginner".

Also, has anybody been saying that the term beginner refers specifically to the amount of time that's passed since somebody learned how to do something? I really don't know who most of your post is even responding to.

Was I responding to you? 

But while we're at it, can you elaborate on this in context of chess?

"You could theoretically, for example, be an expert and a beginner at the same time."

You quote me saying that IDK who you were responding to, asking me if you were responding to me? ...

Happily. "Expert", unlike "beginner" is widely used chess specific terminology. So as well as it's general everyday use, it has a totally separate meaning in chess when referring to that 2-2.2k rating bracket. Beginner has no such widely accepted chess specific definition. Therefore if somebody is a talented enough chess player, they could potentially acquire a rating of 2-2.2k whilst still being a beginner at the game, therefore making them a "chess expert" whilst simultaneously being a "chess beginner".

I started 23 days ago, fell to around 200 then went up to 400 where I am now. Hopefully I can continue learning this masterpiece of a game and one day reach 800 as a modest goal.

I've learned about outpost squares only a few days ago and I still haven't memorised the coordinates. 🤔

Problem is that most used words for low rated players have more than one meaning. Beginner is someone who has just began playing chess. But if after playing for ten years I still play with exactly same strength, am I still beginner or just a low rated player? And how do we measure time when one stops being a beginner, is at weeks since start or hours of play? Because we have som beginners who have played 100 - 200 games, 0 lessons, 0 puzzle in one year time and then some who played 1000 games, 100 lessons, 2000 puzzles in one month, who is the beginner here? Some people think that after some time they automatically stop being beginners and therefore should have higher rating.

Same with amateur and hobbyist as terminology. As long as you don't get paid, you are an amateur even if a lot of people love to use it as an insult. And hobbyist doesn't even have a good definition, I would use it for anything you spend a little or a lot of time on as long as it is not your main occupation. Maybe casual is a good word for people who just play for fun without trying to get better at this specific board game.

I'm 1050 but I can beat 1300's, am I beginner or intermediate?