What Elo is beginner

Your logic is irrefutable within its own framework. However, it just shows that using a 1-bit system (a chess player is either a master or a beginner) makes no sense. You are incredibly better than a real beginner. Calling yourself a beginner causes that word to lose any meaning.

Yes, but I said "beyond the nuances of meaning and definitions"...

Mine is not 1-bit logic. I simply say that the journey is very long and as for how long is it I am still at the beginning ( so, I am a beginner )

800 beginner, 1500 intermediate,

There are those who consider themeslves beginners even if they have a score well above 1000, because they compare themselves with those who really know how to play chess well, consider those as a reference level against which to measure their chess ability, and take note of the great distance that separates them from those.

It is a relative question, it depends on how one sees things and the meaning one attributes to the word "beginner": after all, this is what we are discussing, beyond what the vocabulary and conventional classifications of USFC, FIDE, chesscom, etc., can estabilish. Everyone sees themselves as they want, and has every right to express their opinion on the matter. If one argues for the pleasure of expressing his ideas and comparing them with those of others, there is no reason to feel annoyed. There's room for everyone ( who doesn't want to troll ) in this Beginners forum too.

0-1000

Starting at 100 I would say 400-999 is beginner

Well I'm a novice at this point because I am just literally starting out learning but I catch on quick.

I see there is a lot of answer all over the board here and that's just it. Each individual person is different in there cognitive thinking, problem-solving abilities which makes any one set of numbers not accurate because it literally depends on what, who, and where you are measuring your sample group. Are they international, meaning from all over the world? Are they just US players? Are they just beginners, intermediate and advanced and no Masters? etc, etc. You get the picture.

All I can post is what the USCF says are the rankings and sense there ranking is the biggest one that is depended on in the industry seems that it would be a good base level to start with:

1. Novice - Obviously is a totally new person "such as myself" just starting out, casual players, it's just a hobby, etc. These would not have a rating as of yet.

2. Beginner - These players are just starting there, more serious, journey into the chess world and fall from 0 - 1000. Due to there limited experience.

3. Intermediate - These fall between 1000 and 1400. Have a good understanding of the rules, basic tactics, and openings

4. Advanced - These fall between 1400 - 1800. Advanced players are efficient in tactics, strategy, and openings. They can compete at a strong club level

5. Expert - Should have a USCF rating between 1800 and 2200. These players have a deep understanding of chess, strong opening knowledge, and are capable of competing successfully in tournaments.

6. National Master (NM) - Fall between 2200 and higher. Again were just repeating pretty much everything in 'Expert' above here.

7. FIDE Master (FM) - Fall at 2300 or higher

8. International Master (IM) - Typically corresponds to an USCF score of 2400 or higher. These player have a very high level of chess knowledge

9. Grandmaster (GM) - Typically need an FIDE score of above 2500.

2000. I'm still a beginner in chess.

Disclaimer: I know he's a troll, who's account will probably soon be closed (I'm assuming they're still very trigger happy with this), but I'm bored at work so...

"Beginner - a person just starting to learn a skill or take part in an activity". Just like a rating, it also doesn't matter the difference between individuals, because how good somebody is at something or how fast of a learner they are is not related to the definition of the term "beginner".

So I don't pay any attention to chess. I think I'm playing about 5 games on this site right now. I'll probably lose 3 of them on time at some point. I log in once every couple of days (give or take), make my moves pretty quickly and that's the full extent of how much attention I pay to chess and has been for some time. Before you go there, no I don't look at the forums, but I do check notifications and I've commented on this thread before so I see new posts here. Anyway... my point is that even I know that you've made up these USCF rating brackets, because I know that expert does not start at 1800. I assume this means that you've made them all up. Maybe you have, maybe you haven't.

1400s "can compete at a strong club level". Again, I've literally never played chess in a club. I don't need to to know that's complete nonsense.

I think it says more than I ever could, that you can't even BS up descriptions for top players. That's how disconnected you are to them. That's how lacking in knowledge that you are. An 1800 player (which you wrongly label an "expert") is the same from your perspective as a 2800 player. You probably could not tell their play apart. You don't even include the recognised bracket of "super GM" (I'm assuming that's still a term used), despite including BS brackets like "novice" and "beginner", which have identical definitions.

Hi

Well too many things to cover here "starting off with me trolling. Look if chess.com doesn't want my $16/mon then by all means go ahead of ban me?" and yes my knowledge might be lacking because I DID NOT make my numbers up. I got them from ChatGPT and yes "again" you could say "see there's your problem" but understand it's EVERYONES problem because thousands of people, college students, business, government, etc are getting answers from ChatGPT everyday. Don't act like there's only a thousand or two people in the world using ChatGPT. There are AI's that you probably don't even assume are AI's that large corporations "such as ESPN, ABC, Fox, CNN" etc are using such as IBM Watson everyday or business knowledge, insights, etc.

Well just search Google "as a beginner would" on "expert" rating score and you're going to get a range of results from 2000 - 2199 but plenty of others from 1800 and up too from different sources such as reddit, stackexchange, quora, wikipedia, etc, etc but beginners aren't going to spend a lot of time clicking on all the different sites and do research on what the "REAL" rating is from the official USCF site. They are more than likely going to click on the very first #1 result there and go with that. And we both know that's NOT going to be USCF's website because they probably don't do proper SEO and therefore don't rank for what ever the beginner used to search for.

But I appreciate your insight and input and I committed it too memory and now I know more than I did yesterday. But I do thank you for taking the time to write such a lengthy post in response when you are hardly ever on chess.com. I appreciate the insight.

I want to know what is the threshold where a SuperGM like Praggnanandhaa or Mamedyarov becomes a SuperDuperGM like Ding or Nepomniachtchi

So to sum up, you're using some sort of free diamond membership trial on chess.com, whilst trolling about becoming a GM in 6 months. You seem to be some sort of rep for whatever "ChatGPT" is, and you're replying here inaccurately about what rating ranged are called because you both couldn't be bothered to read the previous posts in threat you're replying in as well as also not bothering to find the USCF's actual website despite claiming to quote them.

Probably some other stuff bla bla whatever IDC OK bye.

Ok fair enough. I guess there's people that get a kick out of trolling but trust me. I'll still be here after Nov 7th "my trial ends" because it's only $16.99 a month which isn't nothing.

Like my name says: I'm 62, retired "all bills are paid for already, so everything I do is just all extra money doesn't matter if it makes $10 or $1000 so I'm doing good. At 62 I grew up in a TOTALLY different time than this 2023 generation. A lot has changed in life than when I was young. I mean sports was pretty much full contact "not many flags penalties", teachers could punish kids for doing bad things in school, bring a gun wasn't even thought of because it was just too ridiculous and stupid, and I could go on but I'm sure we get the point. Just a different time period.

And yes I did find the official website "boy you love assuming a lot of things don't you" and I seen that expert begins at 2000 so I was wrong and so noted. From today on I'll know that and the mistake won't be made again because I don't repeat the same mistake twice. And yes I'm conscious enough to know if I have repeated a mistake or not and sometimes it does happen. Very few times but does happen. Just like it baseball, if it happens three times then there's a problem I need to look into. But that's just me not exactly a good fit for others, especially in today's time.

Oh!

Hmm

Asking ChatGPT for an answer is similar to asking Google.

I don't think most people putting a forum post are asking people to Google it; because they are capable of using Google themselves.

What they are looking for is first-hand experience.

Also note that one of the top results from google is this thread. Most likely one of the top training data sources for this topic for ChatGPT is also this thread, so posting a ChatGPT response in this thread just causes a positive feedback loop.

That's fine. Is ChatGPT = Google? Definitely not. Sorry but I could prove you wrong is so many ways but what's the point. It's 2023 and no one, under 30 really, is really open minded anymore.

Look, first thing people have to understand is Google, ChatGPT, Reddit, Stack, Quora, etc can ALL be wrong. All answers are just opinions because nothing is really fact. Even the so called infallible science has been wrong many times in history. Mistakes are always made and information, knowledge, etc is only known as current "meaning right now" because in the future "which could even be tomorrow, because that technically qualifies as the future" can be proven wrong.

And what is funny about ALL of this "and that I NEVER" expected is the response, replies, and discussions that I have had both on the forums here and in private with beginners, intermediate and master's a like. From both sides believing I'm a scammer, troll, interesting ideas, to just wanting to chat with me about chess and what I currently do know. This last group has been GM's interesting enough? Imagine that!

But I appreciate your opinion of my response and I'm sure I've learned something from it.

Well, it's not identical, obviously, but ChatGPT and search engines work in similar ways and you can expect similar answers.

Both trawl the Internet to look for answers to questions.

There's nothing wrong with using it for that purpose, but that's not what the OP of a thread is usually looking for. What they are hoping for is a range of opinions based on people's experience.

In general, forum threads are meant to be the input to Chat GPT, not the output.

I feel like a lot of your responses are due to your extraordinarily ambitious plan; but that can keep to its own thread, it does not need discussion here.

Same