No sé ingles
What is considered a beginner rating?
Sort:
Asparagusic_acids wrote:
"In the United States, the title of "National Master" is awarded for life, regardless of whether the rating of a National Master subsequently goes below 2200.[10] In August 2002, this position was codified (after being recognized as the existing status quo) by the USCF Policy Board with the passage of a motion stating "Any USCF member who has had a regular post tournament rating of 2200 or higher (published or not) has demonstrated a significant level of chess ability and is recognized by being automatically awarded the lifetime title of National Master.""
I guess we have to disregard this because kindaspongey does not have access to the original source. This is just a wikipedia mention.
No need to disregard something because of me. I suppose that I might try to track down what was passed at the August 2002 meeting, but, nobody should wait for me. Again, I feel that there should be a clear USCF statement, easily-found on the USCF website. Notice, by the way, that 2002 was not “within the last 15 yrs”.
Feb 25, 2020
0
#305
The primary exists. Perhaps an email to the right committee will produce it.
I think also, it depends where you live. In Russia and eastern Europe, 1800 FIDE is about the minimum level to be considered a serious player. But then again, chess is a part of the fabric of the culture. Maybe not as much as back before the fall of comunism, but still a large part of the culture
kindaspongey wrote:
No need to disregard something because of me. I suppose that I might try to track down what was passed at the August 2002 meeting, but, nobody should wait for me. Again, I feel that there should be a clear USCF statement, easily-found on the USCF website. Notice, by the way, that 2002 was not “within the last 15 yrs”.
Firstly you do not know that the decision was in August 2002. We can't go around saying this based on a Wikipedia article. Secondly, if it was August 2002, then notices of this decision would have been after that, meaning I was extremely close in my estimation.
If that citation is correct, I was right on everything else except the date (and within 2.5 yrs of it), while you were wrong in your recollections.
idoun wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
No need to disregard something because of me. I suppose that I might try to track down what was passed at the August 2002 meeting, but, nobody should wait for me. Again, I feel that there should be a clear USCF statement, easily-found on the USCF website. Notice, by the way, that 2002 was not “within the last 15 yrs”.
Firstly you do not know that the decision was in August 2002. We can't go around saying this based on a Wikipedia article. ...
I agree that we should not be relying on a Wikipedia article.
idoun wrote:
... you were wrong in your recollections.
Let me know if you decide that you want to identify a specific wrong sentence.
The thing is I don't want to work that hard
Apr 19, 2020
0
#311
I think the term "beginner" must be very misleading if used to reference tournament play. I have played intermittently for 40 years and win about 9 out of 10 games against people I run into who play chess, including a fair number of folks who play regularly and have studied openings (which I have never managed to understand). So, I don't think of myself as a beginner.
That said, I've recently started playing on chess.com and can hold my own (i.e. win 50% of the time) against players rated 1050-1100. So, I am no match at all for even a run-of-the-mill but dedicated chess player but nevertheless better than 90% of the regular public.
In other words, using "beginner," "intermediate" and "advanced" in a world setting is meaningless. For comparison, the elite tennis players who get eliminated from the first qualifiying rounds at Wimbledon or the US open are not "beginning" - or even "intermediate" tennis players; they are excellent-but-not-world class players.
Apr 19, 2020
0
#312
15 pages of comments. I think pretty much everything that can be said, has. 
Apr 19, 2020
0
#313
ZabedMonika wrote:
I think the term "beginner" must be very misleading if used to reference tournament play. I have played intermittently for 40 years and win about 9 out of 10 games against people I run into who play chess, including a fair number of folks who play regularly and have studied openings (which I have never managed to understand). So, I don't think of myself as a beginner.
That said, I've recently started playing on chess.com and can hold my own (i.e. win 50% of the time) against players rated 1050-1100. So, I am no match at all for even a run-of-the-mill but dedicated chess player but nevertheless better than 90% of the regular public.
In other words, using "beginner," "intermediate" and "advanced" in a world setting is meaningless. For comparison, the elite tennis players who get eliminated from the first qualifiying rounds at Wimbledon or the US open are not "beginning" - or even "intermediate" tennis players; they are excellent-but-not-world class players.
A beginner rating is <2100 chess.com blitz.
Apr 19, 2020
0
#314
ZabedMonika a écrit :
I think the term "beginner" must be very misleading if used to reference tournament play. I have played intermittently for 40 years and win about 9 out of 10 games against people I run into who play chess, including a fair number of folks who play regularly and have studied openings (which I have never managed to understand). So, I don't think of myself as a beginner.
That said, I've recently started playing on chess.com and can hold my own (i.e. win 50% of the time) against players rated 1050-1100. So, I am no match at all for even a run-of-the-mill but dedicated chess player but nevertheless better than 90% of the regular public.
In other words, using "beginner," "intermediate" and "advanced" in a world setting is meaningless. For comparison, the elite tennis players who get eliminated from the first qualifiying rounds at Wimbledon or the US open are not "beginning" - or even "intermediate" tennis players; they are excellent-but-not-world class players.
With your rating you are a beginner.
If you take only one hour you can learn at least one opening for white and you play it 100 times and you will be good with it IF you really feel comfortable;if not find another one...
Then start to try a few opening with black and pick one and learn about it...
Than do a few thousands tacticals problems IF you enjoy them and you will soon be a 1350 player here!
Apr 21, 2020
0
#315
Thank you for your suggestions and encouragement 
As it happens, I have already done the things you suggested (learned two openings, played around 150 games, attempted 1,800 tactical puzzles).
My chess.com rating is about 1050...
.... which would make me feel stupid, were it not for the fact that I win about 9 of 10 games against chess players I run into. NOT chess club players, but seasoned casual players, many of whom have Ph.D.s (I live in a university town) so, in other words, not stupid people.
It seems clear to me - no matter what people say on this forum - that in the real world I am an intermediate player. I have not even been stretched by a beginning adult player (someone who knows the rules and has 50-100 games of experience) in over 30 years.
Perhaps the term should be "beginning to be a serious" player. That is, someone who studies chess hard with the dedication of an aspiring pro athlete. I play chess in my spare time and study on occasion.
Incidentally, have sat by several beginners ( +/- 50 or so games experience) as they play games on chess.com. Their chess.com ratings ranged between 600 and 900.
As my original post suggested, calling someone with a rating below 1200 a "beginner" renders the word meaningless.
19% of marathon runners take over 5 hours to complete the event - and this is among people who have already trained for 6-12 months every day. Less than half of ALL runners can improve on that by 20% - i.e. get home in 4 hours or less. These runners are, by definition better than intermediate ("being or occurring at the middle place, stage, or degree or between extremes")
It certainly seems from these forums that your use of the term "beginner" is in line with most dedicated chess players but, then, the word is being used in a specialized context (an even bigger gulf than that between physicists and the general public when they refer to "work")
Why waste all this type on semantics? I LOVE chess and am distressed by its niche status in the US. Here, they have holidays when the high school football team returns from an away game ("homecoming") and some schools have stadiums that can host thousands of fans. Nobody knows who is on the chess team - if the school has one at all.
Mainstream US culture obviously bears responsibility for this lack of attention and respect for an intellectual passtime - but so does, I feel, the elitist undertones in what I'm finding in the chess community. According to the members of these forums, I am considered FAR below a beginner, despite winning so many games in the real world that I turned to chess.com for a bigger challenge. Others on this thread have pointed out the vast gap between players 200 points apart (a 1200 player would lose on average 9 out of 10 games against a 1400 player, for example, and 99 out of a 100 games against a 1600 player). So, with my 1050 rating I'd be expected to lose about 19 in 20 games against another "beginner" with a 1349 rating? In no other competitive endeavor would the same term be used to describe two contestants.
On a personal level, I'm too old and stubborn to care that much - but I can certainly imagine others feeling judged and put off. After all, there are unkind words for below beginner (remedial? retarded? hopeless?)
I do not mean to single you out for my counter-argument - since you were kind enough both to respond and give encouraging advice I'm just hoping the community will tweak its terminology to be more inclusive and welcoming of newcomers.
Apr 21, 2020
0
#316
ZabedMonika a écrit :
Thank you for your suggestions and encouragement
As it happens, I have already done the things you suggested (learned two openings, played around 150 games, attempted 1,800 tactical puzzles).
My chess.com rating is about 1050...
.... which would make me feel stupid, were it not for the fact that I win about 9 of 10 games against chess players I run into. NOT chess club players, but seasoned casual players, many of whom have Ph.D.s (I live in a university town) so, in other words, not stupid people.
It seems clear to me - no matter what people say on this forum - that in the real world I am an intermediate player. I have not even been stretched by a beginning adult player (someone who knows the rules and has 50-100 games of experience) in over 30 years.
Perhaps the term should be "beginning to be a serious" player. That is, someone who studies chess hard with the dedication of an aspiring pro athlete. I play chess in my spare time and study on occasion.
Incidentally, have sat by several beginners ( +/- 50 or so games experience) as they play games on chess.com. Their chess.com ratings ranged between 600 and 900.
As my original post suggested, calling someone with a rating below 1200 a "beginner" renders the word meaningless.
19% of marathon runners take over 5 hours to complete the event - and this is among people who have already trained for 6-12 months every day. Less than half of ALL runners can improve on that by 20% - i.e. get home in 4 hours or less. These runners are, by definition better than intermediate ("being or occurring at the middle place, stage, or degree or between extremes")
It certainly seems from these forums that your use of the term "beginner" is in line with most dedicated chess players but, then, the word is being used in a specialized context (an even bigger gulf than that between physicists and the general public when they refer to "work")
Why waste all this type on semantics? I LOVE chess and am distressed by its niche status in the US. Here, they have holidays when the high school football team returns from an away game ("homecoming") and some schools have stadiums that can host thousands of fans. Nobody knows who is on the chess team - if the school has one at all.
Mainstream US culture obviously bears responsibility for this lack of attention and respect for an intellectual passtime - but so does, I feel, the elitist undertones in what I'm finding in the chess community. According to the members of these forums, I am considered FAR below a beginner, despite winning so many games in the real world that I turned to chess.com for a bigger challenge. Others on this thread have pointed out the vast gap between players 200 points apart (a 1200 player would lose on average 9 out of 10 games against a 1400 player, for example, and 99 out of a 100 games against a 1600 player). So, with my 1050 rating I'd be expected to lose about 19 in 20 games against another "beginner" with a 1349 rating? In no other competitive endeavor would the same term be used to describe two contestants.
On a personal level, I'm too old and stubborn to care that much - but I can certainly imagine others feeling judged and put off. After all, there are unkind words for below beginner (remedial? retarded? hopeless?)
I do not mean to single you out for my counter-argument - since you were kind enough both to respond and give encouraging advice I'm just hoping the community will tweak its terminology to be more inclusive and welcoming of newcomers.
I wrote what you did read and then after i went right away to look at some of your games to be sure of what i was thinking about your knowledge and focus and at what game speed you were playing.
Of course games against players at 1150 rating were not very meaningful to me when i looked at them so i did look carefully at the one you played against a 1250 or something close to that.
First i was impress by your opening( you had white) and your firsts moves were very good but than you moved a rook but it was a blunder because you didn't protect the pawn that was attacked by 2 pieces already....
You see i remember very clearly what opening you did and the blunder...
I was really sad and i just left right there.
But i knew right there that my "advices" were kind of irrelevant because i felt that you played well enough for what i saw that you didn't need my opinion....
I didn't delete my "advice" because i was in a hurry to do something else.
I saw that you were online and i wanted to challenge you just to get a better idea of your strength but i didn't want to bother you.
I have no idea really of your real strength 
Sorry if i offended you because i really tried not too that is why i looked at your games...
Apr 21, 2020
0
#317
You did not offend me at all
I'm sorry if I came across as defensive!
May 16, 2020
0
#319
FaceCrusher wrote:
Beginner is about 650 actually. 900 is someone who has won a few games at their high school and is pretty decent among his friends. He gets destroyed in his first tournament. 1200s are starting to take the game kinda seriously and know some openings and some strategy. Likely won't lose to normal people anymore. 1400 is good enough to be "The guy who beats everyone's a$$ in chess" in his area of a small town and would be champion at a small to medium size high school.
Chess.com ratings are hard to corrolate to USCF ratings, and while some people say subtract about 200 pts from your Chess.com rating to get your real rating, some loose studies people have done have come out to show the ratings are kinda close, and if off maybe only by 100 pts or so.
Don't listen to the elitists who say "If you're under 1400, your a rank beginner and shouldn't read anything but 'Bob the Bunny's first Chess Book, how the pieces move." They just want to make themselves sound important by saying only they are ready for the more advanced stuff.
1874 is a good rating, is a person who is good at chess, is 99.8% of all people who know how to play chess, and will go the rest of his life probably never losing to a regular person who hasn't seriously studied chess. He'd get destroyed in a state championship, but he's good enough to where the only time he'll lose is in tournaments or to other fairly serious players.
This is the best description I've seen anywhere. Thank you!
My rating remains well below 1000 no matter how many games I play sometimes I play better but generally speaking I can't beat the better players once it gets complicated. Sucks to suck.. but I still managed to have fun in the course of the interaction of the game with my opponents.. and writing about the results.
"In the United States, the title of "National Master" is awarded for life, regardless of whether the rating of a National Master subsequently goes below 2200.[10] In August 2002, this position was codified (after being recognized as the existing status quo) by the USCF Policy Board with the passage of a motion stating "Any USCF member who has had a regular post tournament rating of 2200 or higher (published or not) has demonstrated a significant level of chess ability and is recognized by being automatically awarded the lifetime title of National Master.""