What is considered a beginner rating?

Give the same $ amount of hardware and I highly doubt it. They have stockfish with all the bells and whistles on a supercomputer in Norway for example. Let A0 battle that instead of some old version of SF on bad hardware at bad time controls then not even releasing half the games to the public.

I started a topic about this by the way

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/deepmind-neural-network-strength

If it's not a problem them don't clandestinely select the conditions like old software and cheap hardware.

But of course they wont because winning 51% to 49% isn't a good headline. Even worse they could lose.

In fact 57% isn't a good headline either, so they don't even tell you it's a meager result. They just flash the 100+ wins vs 6 losses to wow the uneducated masses. 

By the way if you think the fact that you're an hours-old account with a female avatar and contentious posts has escaped my attention think again. I don't take you seriously for a second.

Weak sauce.

Latest Leela beat SF11 by + 25 elo margin  which is much more impressive than Alpha Zero as  SF 11 is already +150 elo Stronger than SF 8. 

Thanks for the info.

Although again, I say their strength is completely overblown in the chess playing community. This is a very small difference, and also I'd like to know what kind of hardware they gave to SF.

Just to get to 2450 elo (and very few can get at that level) it  usually take at least 8 years.

Can a super genius do it faster...of course but that is very rare!

In 2 years? no way! 

It took Fisher 6 years to get there.

You referring to a claim about who should be called a beginner? Is it possible to refute a chess terminology claim in the absence of any generally accepted authority?

And not theoriticaly but for real it will be life consuming to go from 2000 to 4000.. so just enjoy man don't trap yourself..

How do you know the precise number of years it takes one to do anything?

I actually don't think intelligence plays such a big factor in chess as opposed to preparation and study.

I've been playing for 5 years and made 2227 FIDE last month,  I'm also most certainly an average dummy.

I still consider myself a beginner, because I have experienced what it's like to play a 2500+ GM who just obliterated me. That's when I realized that the gap between 2500 and everything else increases exponentially.

In my opinion everyone who can't comfortably and confidently play at that level should be considered a beginner, because we simply lack the strength to call ourselves anything else.

These in-between terms like "itermediate", " advanced player", "expert", mean nothing in my eyes.

Is there anyone who gave you the authority to decide that a nonbeginner requires the strength to be able to play comfortably and confidently at the 2500 level?

By the way, do you think that the gap at the Grand Canyon is increasing exponentially?

Well, it would seem likely that they mean different things to different people, but, isn't that also true for "beginner"?

How do you know?

I know how much time it take because i know many IM that are stuck at 2450 since 10 years or woman that are stuck to 2100 since 10+ years and experts that are stuck at 2000 etc etc and they told me how many years they had to work hard daily to get there....and i did read a lot about GM and their story to get there.....

There is no secret there.....and there are many interviews on the net from these peoples....

I can give you a lot of names and show you where to see their interviews but i don't have the time i prefer to go play now....

2200 ELO in 5 years? well you are a genius because that is not at all the average...

4000 will be easy to get once we are a cyborg  in less than 50 years i'm sure...think about a brain directly connected to a quantum computer....with a few thousands qubits.....

I'm telling you that my achievement is below average nowadays, compared to actual, competitive players half my age. I have played countless 13 - 15 yo highly rated players OTB, many among them being FMs and NMs who are true prodigies and progressed at 3 to 4 times that speed. Players taking an eternity to improve is simply a thing of the past with today's instant access to boundless information through pgn libraries, online videos, theory and tactics databases.

2200 ELO in 5 years of hard studies every day and tournements every week  and private coaching and 200 tactics a day + more on openings is doable but not the average.

I know an 11 years old that did 2220 USFC in 5 years of hard work and with a private coach and a tournement every week etc etc....

And i know a 17 years old that did 2400 in 9 years (7 years for 2200).