In your opinion, when..

Could you teach others how to play chess to the point they could play with you?  No doubt you could. Those persons would not be a beginners.  After while he/she could play enough not to be mated every game, and to me that would be beyond a beginner.  Ture, not very skilled, but at least they could say they knew how to play chess.  Also, true, many who say they know how to play do not, I am referring to those that do not understand en passant, etc.

I'm enjoying this discussion.  I love to debate and do my best not to upset others.  I often learn from such debates, and many times I learn I've have been wrong about my opinions for many years.  

I'd say you're not even a beginner until you can solve some of shelby lyman's problems...

Well I for one didn't ever learn anything about chess before my "strength" was around 1600 level. Is it that hard to follow the way in which I said it? For example, I still haven't learned anything about the Dvoretsky endgames, while I know I should. I have to begin learning... right? No need to become all worked up about what I say:p it's all harmless what I write here anyway

(in reply to uhohspaghettio's passionate plea)

What you've learned to reach 1600 level is just kindergarten compared to what lies ahead. And in kindergarten you're just starting out to learn...all this was simply based on that dictionary definition of "beginner".

I'm not even trying to be condescending with one of my first comments in this thread, if that is what is nagging you. I'm not a beginner myself, but I am quite bad at chess. And the only other clash I can remember with you is in one of those cliche rating comparison topics where I claim to have a FIDE speed rating 250 points higher than my chess.com blitz rating. And nobody even questions it...! I don't have a chess.com blitz/bullet rating. There isn't such thing as a FIDE speed rating. It was a trolling joke... oh well. I must say you are the worst audience I've ever played before.

 At the risk of feeding the troll, Heinzie had not addressed you until your post #33 where you first attacked him. It is an occupational hazard of doing so that people may answer back.

Heinzie,

Which 1600 level did you reach while knowing nothing about chess, as you say ? Possibly 1600 in turn-based on this site but not 1600 FIDE. I am pretty sure that a 1600 FIDE would have some knowledge of openings and at least the basic endgames, would possess some basic tactical skills and possibly understand a little bit about strategy. Without going into strong rhetoric, I also think that calling 1600 a beginner is far-fetched.

FWIW, based on my performances so far, when I get a provisional USCF rating it will likely be around 1400. I feel that I've just begun to play chess as opposed to simply reacting to my opponent's moves. In this sense I could be said to be emerging from my beginner's crysalis. However, I have known the rules of chess for over 30 years. It's not unreasonable to apply the term beginner to either my state now or that 30 years ago. As someone (Fezzik?) pointed out, we need more precise terms.

I would say that you just emerged from being a beginner in organized chess, and thirty years ago you emerged from being a beginner at casual chess.

How about "average player" ? After all, a 1600 is better than the majority of the people who know how the pieces move. It's not a genious but there is a clear distinction between an average player and beginner, unless you really want to muddle up the things.

Experience is the best teacher.  U cease 2 b a beginner when u can win regularly/consistently, against whoever.  We as individuals never stop learning; so we r all beginners, as it relates 2 learning, understanding & becoming better chess players.  These point ratings reflect 2 an extent your experience, meaning u can b a 1200 rated player, with 1500 games played; so u r not a beginning chess player, it means u haven't learned enough 2 know how 2 win consistently.  SZ.

All this time, I thought our canned macaroni friend had left chess for good.  

Yes, I agree, it would be good to have more precise terms. I find it easier to figure things out by using analogies. Okay, have patience with me. When I learned to drive and received my driver's license I certainly did not know how to drive in all circumstances.  When I was in the army I was placed in the motor pool. Everyone had to take training, and the sergeant in charge said, "I don't care what you may have driven in your civilian life, until you prove to me that you can drive I'll consider that you cannot drive."  Everyone present their were not beginners at driving, yet few of us could drive in the conditions that we would soon learn to drive through. 

After our training we could drive in places that we thought were impossible when we first began the training. Those conditions were sort of like being at a 1600 rating when we were at a 1000 rating. None of us were beginners, yet we still could not drive in all conditions, but we could drive. Once we passed the training the sergeant accepted that we could drive. However, we were not trained to drive a stock-car and race. Perhaps one could relate that to being a GM in driving. 

I am teaching my wife to play chess and when I told her about this discussion she asked me, "Am I still a beginner?"  I told that she was, because she still does not understand en passant. She said, "Oh, and I still cannot figure out how to stalemate someone."  Now to me that is a beginner.  

I can understand the higher one's rating is the more those under that rating seem more like a beginner.  There is a fine line there in each of our minds. Learning more about any subject does not keep one a beginner in that field or game.

The problem here is that being so vague and clever on what you feel "learn" means (alluding to one of your earlier posts that C players "don't learn anything"), in reality just slows everything down because we end up discussing a trivial matter such as what it means to "learn" something (which may have multiple interpetations, but having an agreed upon literal definition is much better for discussion purposes as then we are all talking about the same thing) rather than the actual question at hand.

Certainly you must learn something to improve; granted, at lower levels lesser ideas, but definitely new ideas nonetheless. There's also applying the knowledge, but these two priority wise are divided pretty evenly.

Thank you.

I like 3, because that takes a person beyond just being a beginner.  I remembered I have an old out-of-print book: Dictionary of Modern Chess by Byrne J. Horton. (Copyright 1959) Here is the definition of a chess beginner:

One who is learning the A,B,Cs of chess. He is learning the first steps of chessplay.  He makes moves without a plan. He rushes into tactical play impulsively and carelessly. An advanced beginner develops some sense of appreciation of planning and foresight.  

It lists some primers for chess beginners, and one is the first chess book I purchased to learn chess, and it is, First Book of Chess, by I. A. Horowitz.  Of course all books listed had moves in descriptive notation. 

So the definition above clearly makes a difference between a beginner and an advanced beginner. After reading this definition I assumed this is where I acquired my definition of a chess beginner.  Problem solved in that case. 

There in no value in trying to make any thread into a battle over anything.

  Semantics interests me, although I am far from knowing much about it.  I have often observed two people in an argument and after listening a while I realize they are using the same word, but a definite definition, and as you had demonstrated in giving the three different definitions, it is easy to become confused in such cases.  The problem with forums is that it seems some people take offense before truly understanding just what someone has written. 

I'm glad you didn't leave for good. 

awwwwwwww!

You have written some interesting things in some of these threads that I have learned from, so I didn't want you to leave.

I enjoy writing to others and learning about them.  Our family is made up of people from other countries and soon a different ethic group.  Discussing why they believe what they do and how they were raised, compared to my experiences, has truly opened my narrow-mindedness to the fact that we are all captives, so to speak, on this celestial ball and we just can't get away from one another. That being a fact, it seems reasonable to me to get along as well as we can with each other.  Since nearly all problems we humans have between us begins in someone's mind, leads me to realize what I think, say, or write about others can make or break their self-esteem. I choose to help others, not hurt them.

Okay,to keep this on the chess topic and back to beginners in chess, looking down on others ability in chess playing is usually an ego trip for any supercilious person so enclined to do so.