Beginner?

-- well this question has tweeked my interest and I find it highly amusing

-- I think the question is straight forward but the answers are twisted

-- I think one could look up the word " beginner " in the dictionary

-- myself personally I think I played better chess when I just played on a board

-- I think computer chess has ruined my game - before playing chess on a board had me thinking about the possibilities and counters

-- playing 15 minute games has me many times just making what looks like a " good move " instead of looking at the positions and considering the possibilities

-- and I have only been in one tournament - and it appears that while leading early I was passed and I will probably only take third place

-- however that tournament " ruined " chess for me -- I assumed on entering the tournament that I would just play game after game ( all games being 15 minute games ) however it turned out that each player had two or three days to make a move - and several players would play " psychological warfare " and take two days to make their move even if they had only one possible move -- and then toss " vacation time " in there to boot. -- taking one or two months to play a 60 move game has totally disillusioned and put me off chess -

-- a beginner is a beginner as defined by a dictionary --

-- whether the player is good bad or ugly that is another question

-- for example - if there was a tournament and you put the world's best player against the world's second best player against a lower ranking chess master and they all played five games against each other -- well if the lower ranking chess master lost every game - some people's definition on this forum would then say he was a " beginner "

-- I would be highly entertained if I could divide all the people that answered this question into two groups - then I be the moderator and then the two groups debated a question

-- a lady is a virgin ( beginner ) and she has sex ten times but she is bad at sex ( frigid and you name it ) ( and so she only has a 1000 rating ) -- the question for debate - since she is bad at sex is she still a virgin ( beginner )

-- if the people on this site maintained their logical premises and transferred their arguments congruently from this chess question the the " hypothetical - debate question I put forth  -- then many if not most of you would maintain she would still be a virgin ( beginner )

-- as moderator I would listen and probably be amused

-- I for one do not think that intellectual thought and stimulus can be furthered by taking words with known definitions and then " making " up or " applying " self made definitions to these words -- and you people are doing that to the word - beginner

-- if people ignored definitions of words and just used words freely with no regard for meaning ( definition ) - most of you would think the people are " crazy " dumb " or " intellectually challenged " - but on this forum on this question that is happening here

-- also I think - a truer indication of how much better one person is than another would NOT necessarily be ' rating " - I think a truer indication of how much better one player is than another would be the " number of moves " it takes the superior player to win over the lesser -

-- and since this tournament I find chess to be " boring " now - before I enjoyed it -- but taking fifty years to play a 60 move game has stifled my exuberance for chess -

-- oh perhaps another definition ???? if two players take three months to play a game of chess they are ?????? how you say????? swift ? bright? brilliant?

-- I find t v bowling to be boring - I find t v golf to be boring -- but I find them to be more exciting and entertaining than a 60 move chess game that took a couple of years to play

-- I would like it if all the games were 30 minutes long  

-- oh and I thought about it - when it comes to chess I am definitely NOT a beginner but I might just be a virgin -

So...look up words in the dictionary for definitions; turn-based chess takes too long to play; use virgins for a "beginner" analogy until it makes no sense; the truly good players should be able to win games in a few moves; turn-based chess is boring; people that play turn-based are not very bright; turn-based chess is boring...

You certainly got worked up , nevertheless it's true that in professional circles masters are considered weak.  If you can't understand the subjective nature of the topic then I'm the one who has to question your language and thinking skills.

It's awesome Dan Heisman is on this site.  Another (online) brush with chess fame

  Yep.

-- I can't sleep and while thinking about this question I would like to offer a possible solution -

- - as well as making up definitions why not make up words - so adding "chess" to the word " usually " would result in Chessually - so a chess neophyte could perhaps be called a " chessually challenged " person 

-- at the opposite end - the high level players are as a percentile probably 1 in 10000 or greater when compared to the general population therefore perhaps "unusual" or "abnormal" -- so perhaps no offense meant by this but perhaps the greatest chess players could be referred to as "chess freaks" ( being abnormal when compared to the general population )

- so if you are not a chess neophyte ( chessually challenged player ) and not a chess freak ( grand master or better ) - then logically you would fall in some where in between - and the term I would suggest for that would be -- Chess Freak Wannbee

- so should you be an intermediate between - chessually challenged player and chess freak wannabee -- then if you are sitting on the fence between those two categories - well then I suggest you could be classified as a bi curious chessually challenged chess freak wannabee

- so should you be an intermediate between - chess freak wannabee and full fledged chess freak - sitting on the fence between those two -- well then I suggest you could then be classified as a bi curious chess freak wannabee chess freak

so the categories ----

1 chessually challenged ( chess virgin )

2 bicurious chessually challenged chess freak wannabee

3 chess freak wannabee

4 bicurious chess freak wannabee chess freak

5 chess freak 

DOE a deer a female deer - etc - etc - etc-  ME a name I call myself

So if you have a sort of identity crisis and don't know what you are or what to call yourself in relation to other chess players feel free to use my descriptive scale

-- I plan on submitting it to the Chess Federation and seeing if I can get a noble prize

--- I think in my lifetime I have been wrong most of the time so Statistically  I just HAVE to be right this time - 

Join a Chess Club, fastest way to progress IMO

I'd have to agree that turn-based chess is boring.

Hooray!  I am not the only that has found it difficult to go to sleep thinking about something in these threads.  I have often gotten up and written what I want to write and then go back to bed.  Of course, being retired that is not a problems for me.  Although sometimes I am thinking about these threads when I should be listening to my wife.  Once I get focused on thinking about something I lock the world out, which comes in handy when playing chess.

I gave up attempting to be correct, in as much as I seem to be lacking in knowledge on so many subjects.  And after joining chess.com I am learning more and more that I know very little about chess.  So little time; so many things to learn. I enjoy chess because there is no way I will live long enough to learn all there is to know about it, thus it will never cease to intrigue me. 

boy this may be fun.  (all definitions from dictionary.com).

The more I study and play, the better I get. However, the better I get, the less I realize I really know about the nuances of the game. In a game that has more potential combinations than there are atoms in the human body, defining people's skill level seems trivial, but what do I know....

yeah Hugh we know bugger all... ;-)