Beginner?

Then what should I refer to myself as? I'm not an intermediate, but I've played nearly 100 games on here.

I agree. 

I've stated that I'm nowhere near an intermediate about a dozen times already, so it should be obvious I understand that.

What do you call yourself then, unospagetthio?

Of course I'm not an intermediate! No where near. 

perhaps you are a beginner while you are still bad at chess but want to get better.  if you are content with your level and know where all the pieces move, you are something else. 

Perhaps between beginner and intermediate, one should be considered a novice?  I learned to play chess back when I was about 10 years old, but never really played games because I never knew anyone who knew how to play until a couple years ago.  So while I'm not a beginner by any stretch, I'm still trying to develop tactics and strategies, and feel like I'm caught between being a novice and an intermediate.  Luckily this friend who rekindled my interest in chess told me about chess.com.  I guess I just need to jump in and start playing games with random strangers, if only I had the time to do so.  Perhaps correspondence games are the way to go.

Is any blog worth it?

Perhaps IM Daniel Rensch has already shed some light on the matter.

"The entire video series is designed for players ranging from Intermediate-Advanced levels (1400-2200 USCF). Enjoy!" - IM Daniel Rensch

Using the above as a working definition, Class D and below could be classified as beginners, while Intermediate begins at Class C.

To answer woodshover's question of what to be called, here's one possibility -

Class D = Strong Beginner, Class E =  Beginner, Class F and below = New to Chess or Needs Work.

I'm a "Needs Work" in blitz. It would be fun to find out my USCF rating. The problem is that the tournaments are 100 miles away, or more.

879 USCF? (My current blitz rating). Ouch!

• 2400 and above: Senior Master
• 2200–2399 plus 300 games above 2200: Original Life Master
• 2200–2399: National Master
• 2000–2199: Expert
• 1800–1999: Class A
• 1600–1799: Class B
• 1400–1599: Class C
• 1200–1399: Class D
• 1000–1199: Class E
• 800-999: Class F
• 600-799: Class G
• 400-599: Class H
• 200-399: Class I
• 100-200: Class J

I'd probably be Class K. Anyway, I must be on something because I thought your turn-based was 1700, and your blitz was 15 or 1600.

There's a huge gap between my Blitz and Turn-Based ratings. Perhaps the over 50 guys like me just can't think that fast anymore. Also, the medications I take daily hurt my blitz, so the huge rating gap between turn-based and blitz will unfortunately always exist.  

Turn-Based = 1572 with a peak of 1626 on August, 2010.

Blitz = 879 with a peak in the mid 900's.

I kept experimenting with openings in 2010. Very stupid. I've got a KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) plan for 2011 that should keep me easily in the 900's with a goal of 1000+  by 2012.

I must say woodshover, this has been a very good topic that you have started. It got me thinking about a bunch of stuff. Too much to share in one post. I've got all of next year to type away. A simple, yet thought provoking topic. Well done.

Hm... have you tried playing games on like 20 minutes or so per game ? Or just relaxed games without a clock ?

Turn-based mostly

I've tried 20 minute games, however, it's still too fast for me to see most tactics and beat players rated over 1000. Perhaps 20 minute games will suit me better when my tactics trainer rating AND checkmate pattern recognition rating (Chess Mentor) increases by 100 - 200 points.

My tactics are improving with practice, so there's still hope. In May of 2010 my tactics trainer rating was 629.  My current rating as this year ends is 1012, an increase of 383 points. :)

There is no official dictionary of chess, so obviously we can each have our definition of beginner and be entitled to our opinion. I make a comment on something similar ("weak player") in the first Reader Question near the bottom of page 4 of my NN "Intermediate Time Controls Hinder Improvement" http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman115.pdf

And yes, players 2400+ consider players at my level rather weak - it's all relative. As noted in the above article, I certainly mean no insult when I write "Weaker players often..." Sometimes that includes me, too.

To reply to an earlier comment, I once wrote (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/real.txt) that if you don't consistently check to see if your candidate moves are safe (i.e., can be defeated in reply by a check, capture, or threat which cannot be met), then there is a ceiling on your FIDE/USCF rating of about 1650/1700 since almost anyone could possibly beat you when you make such a move. I call this "Hope Chess" since essentially you are not checking for safety and thus if your opponent makes a forcing move (such as a threat), then you can only hope that you can safely meet it (and if you can, you are lucky for that move). Having taught hundreds of students below this level since that time, I have pretty much verified what I believed to be true. This does not mean that such players are beginners (again, that is just definition), but it does mean that no matter what their experience, their upside is relatively capped until they overcome that barrier, at least in slow games. There are other reasons to "hope" in chess, such as hoping your opponent does not see how to refute your move. I don't call those "Hope Chess" but certainly they could be called that - perhaps "Hopeful Chess" - see the 3rd question in the Novice Nook Quiz http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman76.pdf

GM Rowson wrote that giving intermediate adults more chess knowledge (openings, endgames, principles) apparently does not make them better players, and this is pretty much true. What makes someone a better player is becoming a better analyst and evaluator. That is why it is not uncommon for 11-year old 1900 players with relatively little experience (but expert analytical skills) to beat 40 year old 1600 players with 1000 tournament games and 500 books. Or try this thought experiment: take a 1400 player and give him a "pill" to memorize MCO-15. What would his rating be then? One student recently guessed 1409, and that seems about right, although perhaps the confidence gained from the knowledge would yield more results than just the knowledge itself, even up to ~1470, but then further opening knowledge (like a pill with another opening book, without adding analysis skills) would probably yield nothing.

Hope some are enjoying my 10th book "A Guide to Chess Improvement" - if you wish the errata list for any of my books, please drop me an email. The 2nd edition of my 2nd book "The Improving Annotator", with an expanded Introduction on how to annotate games, new games, and updated computer analysis notes (many making my original analysis look silly, but that's to be expected) will be out any day now from Mongoose Press.

Happy New Year to All - Dan H

Excuse me everyone, but I think that's the fourth master to quote me! A very proud moment for me, being on a chess forum and all, even if some of them have asked me to leave the country

Congrats, oh Oracle of Ann Arbour

EDIT: or however you spell it

My favorite chess author comes to post. :)

How are any of your chess books going to sell after telling people that chess knowledge will not make them better players? 

Just kidding. The reference was to intermediate players, who I believe could also profit from your teaching. 

Having received an Amazon Kindle for Christmas, I purchased your book titled "The Improving Chess Thinker" and it was delivered in 2 seconds directly to my Kindle. It's a dangerous electronic device, as I love to read.

International Grandmaster Lev Alburt wrote an excellent forward to your book. I especially like the following:

"Does reading a book dealing with the subject of 'chess thought' and the decision-making process really allow one to improve? Given that every move in chess is a unique decision, it is actually possible to improve one's entire game at once by improving one's thought process." - Lev Alburt

Yes. You have been blessed yet again by the chess gods.