What rating is no longer considered "beginner"?

I honestly just want to know what is your opinion on what rating isn't beginner anymore.

A rating of around 1000

The bots are grouped in beginner, intermediate, advanced and have ratings estimates on them. So about those estimates. But play can be variable depended on distraction levels, so even if you know something you might not pull the required consideration to mind and play bellow par.

How to know you're a beginner:

•The main method of drawing in your games is an accidental stalemate.

•Blundering material in one move is more common than sacrifices.

•Every opening is like the London. People just move how they move regardless of what their opponent is doing.

•Ladder checkmate with over 10 points of material advantage is a regular occurrence.

•Most middlegame checkmates are surprises, possibly even accidents.

•Checkmates in the opening happen occasionally.

•You sometimes win down 10+ points of material.

•People either don't resign at all, or resign inexplicably with a material and positional advantage.

•Book moves are rarer then blunders, inaccuracies, misses.

•En passant is either nonexistant or forced.

•The whole point of an opening line that was played is thrown out the window most of the time, i.e. Openings are Cargo Cult.

•Simple counting mistakes resolve tactics in unexpected ways.

•Not sure if you should trade when you have the option.

•Keeping the tension when two pawns or pieces attack each other is rare. Both players forgetting to take is common, as is taking when it's not beneficial.

1700

1300

Different people will obviously have different answers. And for most of them, it's not just about rating.

One thing's for sure: someone who played a total of 2 games (and abandoned a few more) is a beginner. What else?

Who doesn't hang pieces every move is a intermediate in my opinion. I think around 1200 is my guess.

An 1100 rated player would beat a real beginner 100-0 with none of the games being competitive. Sure, you can lump them in the same category, but then that category makes no sense.

In other words, the difference between an 1100 rand a real beginner is roughly the same as between Magnus and you. Would you put Magnus and yourself in the same category?

I think the difference between me and magnus is much much larger than a 1100 and a beginner :-) . I personally found that most 1100s blunder a lot compared to 1200s. Who do you think is a real beginner?

This is probably true for another reason which is that above about 2000 the draw rate goes up and this causes serious ELO compression. The difference between 2400 and 2500 is substantially larger than the difference between 1600 and 1700. Though I'm really not sure if this applies to the difference between 100 and 200.

real beginner: 0-1000

advanced beginner: 1000-1200 maybe

A true beginner who doesn't know anything more than how the pieces move and the rules? I think they would be absolutely destroyed. The average rating is 800. That means half of NON-absolute beginners are below that.

The dictionary definition of a beginner is "a person just starting to learn a skill or take part in an activity". On here there seems to be a confusion between this dictionary definition based on time and an assessment based on skill. For example, is someone who has been playing chess for 50 years still a beginner because they are bad at the game?

My rating is about 1300 so what would I be?

1428!

Awhile back, when I was like 500-600 ELO, I played my brother OTB on a new small folding board with unusual piece shapes he got me as a present from his trip, and I lost, but the way the game went was rather telling.

I wasn't used to OTB or the unusual piece shapes and I played the Queens' Gambit, which he accepted not because he thought it was better to accept, but because he actually didn't know it was a gambit. But in about the first 10 moves I blundered 20 points of material for nothing trying to do tricky tactics and just not seeing threats at all.

I kinda made myself see the threats and over about the next 30 or so moves, I won back all of it. When I was down 20 points of material it did not feel like I was really all that much at a disadvantage. By the time I was down 5 points of material I felt completely winning and by the time I was up 3 points of material the game was as good as over.

Then disaster struck and he managed to maneuver a few passed pawns I didn't really think anything of and get 2 queens and laddermate me.

Even though I lost, it's instructive to note that basically the entire middlegame was shooting fish in a barrel and not losing essentially anything, with half his pieces trapped, pinned to his king or queen, making "hope chess" attacks that never do anything, or just useless while the rest were getting destroyed.

This suggests that if we had played online where my board vision wasn't completely messed up, a fair game might be Q + R + R + N + P odds or something ridiculous. But I'm not sure. He likes maintaining his 100% win rate against me.

Basically, I would be surprised if absolute beginners > 300 ELO on average. And certainly they're not 550.