In your opinion, when..

Okay, in an attempt to be somewhat on the same page, so to speak, here is the deffinition of a beginner: be gin ner |biˈginər|

nouna person just starting to learn a skill or take part in an activity. 

Cerainly a person with a C-rating is far beyond that. The key part of this is: just starting to learn.

Isn't that what class C players are doing? Just starting out to learn how to play?

@OP: Do you mean graduate to a decent player, or, time wise, to just a patzer with no excuses?

I think that a USCF rated class C player is stronger than over 1/2 of the Chess players in the US.  I would say a class C player is no longer a beginner at organized or competitive chess.  I think a Class D player is more than a beginner.   I think a beginner is someone who knows the moves, but has no knowledge of strategy and tactics.

Huh I don't even know what you're upset about uhohspaghettio. The only question I can read back in this thread is where I take the dictionary definition (I thought those to be a big no-no on forums?) and give it a small twist. Maybe I worded it incorrectly. I mean 1400s are just starting out LEARNING chess, instead of just playing and improving. They start reading books, start visiting tournaments, I don't know, it's late. Why are you so upset? I didn't throw one of your favourite ad hominems around, did I? :p

Well, of course you don't see, Heinzie: remember, uhoh is an intelligent man, and not everyone can match his standards.  You clearly are the type with such issues with self-esteem that you would use the internet to insult people, and claim an unwarranted superiority over others forum users.  Someone like uhoh steers clear of such tactics.

Oh now I see. Maybe. If I flinch my eyes a bit

Would a pair of glasses help?

No they wouldn't. But thanks for offering

Some google searching says about 600 million people in the world know how to play chess.

An official class C player is in the 40th to 58th percentile of tournament players, so that'd mean about 4 million players out there class C or better. 

Now obviously, there are a lot of players on the internet or in local clubs who don't play registered tournaments but are of Class C quality or better, but I don't think you can call someone in the 50th percentile as a "beginner."

Uh... not really. That's more like people who have only played chess a couple times.

Your reply made me feel great, because you wrote that I am totally right! I can’t wait to show that to my wife. Also you said that I am an intelligent man, and I can’t wait to forward that to my sisters, because siblings never appreciate such truth.  Not to worry, they will keep me humble with the truth of the matter.

If one was brilliant it no doubt would not be long before he was not a beginner. He would quickly move beyond C-class. 

Thank you for the kind words about me being quite correct in my post. I am not attempting to right, just wanting to learn what others consider a beginner.

Yes, you could say that.

I don't think so. At that point they know the laws of chess, moves and usually some experience in developement a some opening plays.  To me, that is beyond being a beginner.

It all depends on why a person plays chess.  If for the sheer fun of it, it doesn't matter.  If a player is wasting his opponent's time as I have read about in these forums about people refusing obvious draws or letting the time run out, etc., then that is another thing.

I know people that never make it above 800, and couldn't care less, but they enjoy playing.  They are not beginners, they just don't either have the time to study or really just play for the fun of it.

LOL!  I love it!

I knew all the rules of chess well before age 10, and played chess off and on all my life.  But even at age 35 or so I would have categorized myself as a "beginner",  because I had never done any sort of studying or reading or even discussion of the game.  Even now, I've still never entered any competitions, but over the past few years I've at least begun some actual minor study with an eye toward improvement, so I'd say maybe at age 50 now I've advanced to novice.  

Touche! I would never use a dictionary definition to correct anyone, but I do it to try to make certain we are all using the same definition.  Anyway, where did this idea that using definitions is a no-no?  I have only been a member since August and I am not aware of that being written in the rules of proper forum writing.  

A player could have a lower rating than 1400 and know a great deal about chess. If he/she has little time to play that could hamper the ability to raise to a higher level.  I think rating are too often misused to determine another ability to play chess well. True, it is a handy barometer, so to speak, but it isn't the entire story. 

Your humor is refreshing.