I have posted this topic to ask some of you, which rating would be considered begginer's one. For instance in study plans, it says begginer for <1400, while in computer workout it is known as <1200, and while playing vs computer it says ~500 left of beginner. So, I ask you for your opinion.
A beginner should not care about his rating.
I should add that when I first started playing on chess.com, I was playing for results only, thinking that improvement would follow. And while I did improve, I could have advanced better if I had played harder opponents. Instead, I played lower rated players only. I wish I could go back and do this over again, I could have improved quicker.
So, Don't worry about your rating, play and learn against higher rated opponents, and remember in the long run, your rating will only reflect your playing strength
a standard beginners rating is about to 1000-1400
I would even amend this and say 800 - 1400
0 - 1400 :)
I think <1200
define beginner....someone told me they were still a beginner after years of playing...
So, If I understand this right, you are a beginner until you surpass a ca. 1000-1400, etc... rating, no matter how long it takes?
I have been playing for 45 years, but according to the ratings, I'm still a beginner. I think we have to completely rethink the terminology. Forget terms such as "beginner," "intermediate," "advanced," etc.
What's really important is whether you've mastered the fundamentals of the game--opening, planning, tactics, endgame--to any degree whatsoever. The ratings will help you more here than the terms, yet even they are deceptive. For instance, you may be a master of rook and pawn endings but get blown off the board by some opening trap. You may be able to play the first 21 moves of the Ruy Lopez exchange variation from memory, but if your opponent goes out of book on move 5, you have no idea what to do.
Yes, you may say I'm a fine one to talk, given my relatively low rating here. But 45 years of experience in this game (and in life in general), tells me that you simply have to identify your strengths and weaknesses, then go to work on your weaknesses. Get rid of ratings. Get rid of descriptive terms.
Totally agree ratings and other labels need to be taken as worth agrain of salt. Enjoy this wonderful game and too hell with win lose or draw.
[MOD: Watch your language. Profanity nor abuse are tolerated at this site.]
Perhaps you should have taken your nappie a little earlier today darling, you get crabby when you're tired.
I think IM pfren is correct though. For a beginner it will just drive you crazy and may be discouraging.
While very little truly surprises me on the Internet regarding people's conduct, seldom have I seen so innocuous and unobtrusive a comment (pfren's) cause such immense, ridiculous, and absurd provocation.
How hilarious. If he did indeed close his own account, he essentially punished himself appropriately for a completely unacceptable, unprovoked, and utterly shameful action!
Well pfren is an IM and I'm below 1200, so far be it from me to argue. But I don't find the rating system to be unhelpful or to drive me crazy. Quite the contrary-I find it very motivating.
But perhaps IM pfren has other reasons for saying that-or he meant it as a general guiding principle.
Good attitude Bellomy.
Sure you can disagree just not abusive and with foul language :)
@Bellomy: That is a healthy attitude. The rating system is helpful.
pfren simply said a beginner should not care about the rating. Perhaps more accurate would have been, "A beginner should not worry" or "take to anxiety about his rating."
A beginner should first, and foremost, try learning chess.
The rating system has some meaning for players that know how to play chess (or, eventually, THINK they know how to play chess), and not for beginners.