What rating is considered intermediate?

It is not easy to draw a line between accuracy and skill level. It can probably be done on a higher level, but it is not really easy to do so for us weaker players. The reason is because your accuracy depends on your opponent's moves as well.

For instance, if you play against someone who is much lower rated than yourself, your accuracy will (on average) be a lot better than if you play against a GM.

So it could possibly be done but some average opponent's strength would have to be taken into account as well, so it is not that simple.

Well, that's one definition. "An inexperienced person" is another defintion. But in chess, some have named specific rating groups by name. Silman, for example, in 'Silman's Complete Endgame Course - from beginner to master' has named his chapters specifically after these rating groups, so that people don't try and study endgames that aren't useful for them (yet). He also uses the term 'beginner' for a rating group of 0 to 999. Then there are class E to class A with specific ratings etc. etc. It's just a descriptive term. 

Let me be clear, I'm not so stuck in my ways that I absolutely have to call someone a beginner. In my posts in the beginner's forum I've often used 'improving player' or 'lower rated player' interchangeably for 'beginner'. But there is value in calling a specific rating group with a name that is commonly given to them and not just when you're writing a book. That is because the advice for improvement for all of these players is more or less the same. For 400s and for 900s that advice would be tactics, tactics, tactics, while for 1500s that advice might be tactics and study the middlegame. 

Now you might argue that 1000 or 1200 is an awfully high bar to reach to leave the beginner class. But that is because of the differences between online chess and OTB chess, as I explained in my previous post. And as the beginner at a club gives away too many pieces, it seems safe to say that in terms of usefulness there is no problem in grouping 1000 players together with 400 players as the mistakes they make and the advice you give are one and the same. 

I absolutely disagree that the term 'beginner' is offensive in any way. As I've said before, it's a descriptive term for a group of players. It's a neutral term. There's nothing wrong about being a beginner. Every grandmaster was a beginner at some point. There's nothing childish about being a beginner, it's just someone that is inexperienced. And in the grand scheme of chess players' ratings, if you still give your pieces away after 20 years of playing, you're still inexperienced compared to all the chess players out there. And yes, you are a bad player if you still give your pieces away after 20 years of playing. And that also doesn't matter, cause you can still have loads of fun with chess and no reasonable player looks down on lower rated players that are just having fun playing the game. Besides, they'll know they're bad at chess. They'll have lost so many games. Using a term to describe a class of chess players won't change a bit.

@RAU4ever This is so beautifully written.  Thank you for this kind and well balanced explanation. 

I think the objection for me when people lump low rated players in with genuine "beginners" is the insinuation that they have completely the same level of understanding and ability of the game as a player totally new to chess. I think most of the time that's just not true.

A low rated player might be low rated because their quality of game play is inconsistent or they have certain weaknesses. But there might also be aspects of the game that they understand reasonably well. Maybe they're good at end games or tactics or something else, but significant short comings are holding them back from moving up the ratings. For example, when I win, it's usually because I've been able to pull off a quick checkmate within the first 25 moves. Could a total beginner do the same? Maybe. But I'm willing to bet a typical beginner would more often than not blunder away all their pieces to reach an end game, promote a pawn to a queen and then somehow stalemate their opponent.

Another example not related to chess: I've played guitar for over 20 years now. I'm self taught with no formal training. I know a handful of chords, but I still cannot read music. But I can play punk guitar to an OK standard. I know I'll never be Jimi Hendrix, but does this make me a beginner? No. Beginners can hardly make chord shapes with their fingers or even strum the strings. If you want to call me anything, say I'm just a bad or lazy guitarist.

Believe me, I've played against real beginners. They know how the pieces move and not much more than that.

Intermediate? Do you mean average?

Average rating on chess.com is just above 800 (from 805 to 820).

<400 - Flailing.  
400 - 500 - gets beat by scholars mate
500 - 600 - wins with scholars mate
600 - 700 - gets beat by fried liver attack, wayward queen, Edmunds gambits, etc. 
700 - 800  - wins with or against fried liver, wayward queen, Edmunds gambit, etc. 
800 - 900 - stops blundering queen every game

1000 - 1100 - tactics starting to click 
1100 - 1200 - playing more end games 
1200 - 1300 - Early Intermediate 

I don't know about that.  I am adult and my rating is below 650.  I guess I'm just the worst player on earth.

I'm wondering if he's referring to adults who were formerly in chess clubs or had formal training at some point?  It's been about a year of learning to play chess for me and I've barely reached 800.  How about you?

@Jim5489 Oh, you mean your FIDE rating...But, your CC ratings suggest that you're at least intermediate, so looks like you're doing pretty good.

No, your rapid rating is 1255 and you have a great puzzle rating.

There are plenty of OTB players below 1000. Many people just don't read or study chess, yet still go to chess clubs to play chess for fun - and might play in a division set for players from 500 - 1000 strength.

I think every one of these players could thrash someone who walks in from the "real world", say a true beginner, with not much understanding more than how the pieces work. This is because they have acquired skill and experience just from playing. I wouldn't call these players beginners, but compared to grand-masters they might appear to be.

I would call them low-rated players.

P.S It takes a long time to get good at chess, so please don't look at your low rating and self-deprecate and say you're the worst player or dumb, because that isn't true. There's nothing wrong with being low-rated and the more stuff you learn to help your chess, and put it into practice in your games, the more your rating will climb. The main thing is to keep loving chess.

My puzzle rating is a function of being able to spot mate in 1, mate in 2 and mate in 3.  Doesn't make me a decent player though.  

You are among the top 12% in rapid and much higher in puzzles.

And a rapid rating of 1255 puts me at the bottom of the barrel.  From what I've heard, anyone with a rapid rating below 1600 stinks.

Lol, seriously? Have you seen my games? I’m 1700 and I’m rubbish lol

The world championship is rocking the chess world now, so... yes... everybody below 2600 are useless these days. In that context.

I’d say intermediate is about 1800 USCF

OK, I think it's a little ridiculous to say someone at the 1500 level or so is "rubbish".  Judging chess by the standards of the elite of the elite is a little silly.  1500 players are better than 95% of everyone who plays chess.  1700 players better than 99%.  Of course there are very advanced players who can outplay them - but their game is very very far from rubbish.