"Anything below 1500 elo is beginner" Is there any truth to this statement?

#13-- True for how you see the world, yes; true for anyone else, no. It shouldn't be necessary to point out that you have set yourself an impossible task, trying to prove what is called "subjective incompleteness"---I cannot achieve X, and I feel bad, both about myself and anyone else who cannot achieve X, as well. Everyone else should feel the same way I do about X. You have created a universal standard based on your feelings and projected this on others. You have zero chance, as a general rule, of not getting ridiculed for such bombast. For one thing you are kicking personal autonomy to the curb. I think you knew this before you ever typed your OP and just did it to get people heated, knowing full well others would view this as existential criticism.

You're not wrong badger, that was cruel of me. I'm justifying my own semi-irrational self loathing.

#23-- This will make you feel better, then everyone can get on with their day.

Depends on your context. If you mean among chess players (ones who play regularly, go to tournaments, study etc) then yes, <1500 is beginner for sure. I’d barely put myself above it, and I’ve been 2000 recently. 
If you mean in the context of chess.com and casual enjoyers who know how the pieces move and little else then 1500 is an incredible achievement that shouldn’t be undervalued.

Please distinguish between Blitz rating and rapid rating. There is often a gap between the two like in my case (I am much better rated in rapid). It does not make sense to mention a rating unless you specify the kind

#26--Always ready to make a positive contribution.

Well you have only played about 1800 games.

To be fair though, that is probably true

Sorry nevermind. I have only played about 1900 games...

Any truth? Not much, in my opinion. 1500 chess.com rapid is something like the top 5-10% of all chess players globally. The average chess rating is in the 600s. I wouldn't call roughly 95% of all chess players to be "beginners."

That being said, the small "truth" behind this statement is that 5% of the world population is still... a lot. Math was never my strong-suit. The point is that even if you are at 1500 rating and pretty advanced, you still aren't likely to win much of anything at a local chess club. The global ratings are brought down by the many casual players who know little more than how the pieces move and play only one or two games a year (if that).

The average of everyone is different from the average in competitive contexts.

That being said, I'd say that knowledge-wise, 1500 is almost the start of deeper positional chess. I'd say that's more the 1600-1800 range. Sure, players below this level can sometimes identify weak squares or holes, but games are seldom decided because of one weak square. The 1600-1800 chess.com rapid range is about when I begin to see more games decided for reasons like this... then higher than that rating (especially 2000+), you learn more about the exceptions to what you just learned lol. Counterplay and piece activity then become more important (for example).

A lot depends on how we think about "What is a beginner?" If we take the view that beginners are players who only recently learned the rules and have been playing chess for less than a month, then a 1500 rating is very unlikely. But I think a lot of chess players use "beginner" in a weird way to mean something like "bad/inept" - but that would be clearer, because you can play for years and still be really bad (I wouldn't call myself a beginner, just really bad, as I've been playing for over two years). Chess.com users are probably the widest and most reliable sample of chess players in the world - more rated chess games are played online than over the board, and unlike real life tournaments you get the entire range of chess players, from people who only learned how the pieces moved that week, up to GMs. So, people who say "People under 1500 are beginners" are really just out of touch with the reality that 95+% of the chess world plays in that U1500 rating range. It's actually very rare for anyone to ever make it over 1500. The true beginner range - after just learning the rules and playing for a couple of weeks - is probably 100-200 Elo. The average Elo of active players is around 600-700 (if we try to exclude bots/cheats/alt accounts maybe add ~200 and say average Elo is ~800-900).

Lets say sub-1500's play poorly. Better yet, say sub-1800's play poorly, when compared to IM/GM's. Why would anyone care? All meaning is personal, so assume it's true, what has changed? I embrace my poor play relative to titled players, in fact I'm probably worse than many 1200 elo players, and thats utterly fine. These dumpster fire threads and the trashposters who create/support them are always the same, its always about degrading others, their chess, their gender, their national origin, whatever they can use to cause harm. They have nothing positive to offer. Maybe they intend to list that they chomped their way to 2400 on their resume. The Best is, almost no human being cares what your ELO is. Need proof, ask any rando if they care about the ELO of the OP, chompy, or anyone else here at Chess.com. Most people in the world don't even care who is the present world chess champion. Stop caring about the pointless.

An ELO of 1500 puts you on a higher rating than about 97% of active Chess players.

I would argue that being in the top 3% or so, of any sport, game, discipline.... would earn you a greater label than "Beginner"

I mean it's a million miles away from the proper elite level players but that is true across all disciplines.

Take golf for example. Someone with a handicap of say 2 is easily in the top 1% of all golfers but they are still a million miles away from the standard the pros play at and they will likely get nowhere near that standard ever. But you wouldn't refer to them as "beginner"

So I'd say

Total Novice 100-299 ELO

Beginner 300-499 ELO

Advanced Beginner 500-799 ELO

Intermediate 800-999

Strong Intermediate 1000-1199

Advanced Intermediate 1200-1499

Accomplished 1500-1999

Expert - 2000+

Then we're in to chess masters and so on...

Some people may quibble about a 1500 rated player being referred to as "accomplished" but I'd argue that anyone who is in the top 3% or so, is pretty accomplished and it is a far better descriptor than "Beginner"

Titled players are very rare, even at the club level. The intermediate open section in county tournaments is 1000. Another frequent cutoff I see is 1200. Staked tournament open might be higher.

A beginner who only just know how the pieces move should be around 400. Under 1000 are novices. Anything above 1000 are category players, not beginners. 

To play professionally, you should be at least 1700 by age 17.