I also personally view very weak players as "beginners" and perhaps this is wrong but I do.
Me too. If someone has been playing for years, but is still no better than when they started out I don't think they deserve to be called an "intermediate" or "advanced" player...
Hey, you fellas are talkin' about me! I'm not a beginner! I've been getting my rear handed to me for years. I'm an advanced loser.
When discussing ratings, are we talking about live chess or correspondence, as i believe there is a big skill difference. Someone who plays 1500 blitz could play 1900 correspondence, which allows research and plenty of time. Someone lousy at correspondence could be a good blitz player because he has quick sight of the board, nerves, and a willingness to play risky openings. So what are we talking about here. I think a beginner would be really bad at blitz, because they would be worried about piece movemnt, trying to recall openings they haven't experienced much, etc.
Even world champions are considered "first among equals".
That was a formulation put forward by Mikhail Botvinnik that may have described himself but otherwise was a bit of Soviet newthink without much validity as demonstrated by Fischer, Kasparov and even Karpov during Botvinnik's own lifetime.
Why do you think "world champions" being "first among equals" is a bad formulation? It's as if you think Botvinnik didn't know what he was talking about. Every world champion has had his string of sucesses but also failures when it comes to tournaments as sitting champions. I'll let you do your own research on that. You're little jab at the Soviets for "newthink" reveals much about your thinking. Say what you want about that era of soviet hegemony (look it up if you need to) but they new how to play some seriously good chess.