What is considered a beginner rating?

I would say below 1000.

I think 1300 and below is beginner... just because those are the players that still need to focus on not blundering, basically. 
1300-1700 I suppose is intermediate... they still need to learn about piece sacrifices, initiative, maintaining tension, and playing the whole board. 
1800-2200 ... have to start playing strategically, positionally, dynamically, throwing off the opponent, practicing their tactics, endgame technique, etc.. Good chess players, but not titled... there's still alot of advanced concepts to study / master here. So maybe you'd call this level "advanced". 
2200+ is where you start to see titled players.

Learning is a gradual process though, players typically learn a little about the opening as they go along, study it more depth as the climb higher... and by the time they reach 1800 they're ready to develop a serious repertoire. 
Broad intuition about the game is pretty important when developing a good repertoire, a task that is not trivial in the least... I don't think a player that hasn't experimented with developing opening systems is going to be ready to develop a serious one when they're 1800. 
There's really no better time to try out alot of different openings than when you're a beginner, where any opening is viable... and you don't need to study them in depth to play them. 
And there's alot of value in familiarizing oneself with many different plans / themes, which... you will get from playing different openings. 
I do agree that beginners should not take the opening super-seriously until they're about 1800. I think beginners should be encouraged to try all kinds of openings... just learn the basic moves and themes - it doesn't take that long - and then play it.

:grimace

I think there should be an extra level. I would say beginner is up to 700. This is players who know the moves and might be able to play reasonably, but are making lots of mistakes. This is a level where the winner is who makes the fewest bad moves, not the most good ones.

Around 700-1400 I would regard as 'standard'. Having 1199 and 250 both as beginner seems too big a category. A 'standard' category of people who have progressed from games being lost but not progressed to games being won seems logical. It would also mean people who have played for years but not reached intermediary aren't called beginners.

Beyond that is immediate etc. In the olden days where people used physical sets and had to join clubs to get a ranking then beginner until intermediate made sense. But in the internet age, with lots of more casual users, it makes more sense to me to have a step between a beginner and an intermediate.

"I think 1300 and below is beginner."

A rating of 1265 rapid would put you in the top 7%, for this reason I would say that your assertion is inaccurate.

"Around 700-1400 I would regard as 'standard'."

This is also inaccurate because there is an enormous difference in that range. Comparing 700 to 1400 would be like comparing a kids school football team with lower league professionals.

Its a subjective question but I would have thought that around 800 would be the upper end of "beginner" level

The vast majority of the population just doesn't take chess that seriously. Many people know how to play chess, and play it now and then... they approach it very casually, just playing whimsically and not even training at all, and that skews the percentage ranking... I find it more useful to base the categorization on where the player is in their training... the type of problems the player has and what they need to work on, rather than the percentage ranking. For example, if a person is just starting the game and is 1200 (that was my elo when I first started) - they know almost nothing about chess beyond the opening and how the pieces move - this person would not be a beginner by your standard. But they are a beginner... in terms of training they don't understand anything - they know nothing about tempo, really don't know the opening beyond like 3 moves, etc.. They're 1200 just because they look carefully before they move, and for whatever reason they're able to do that better than others... 
I suppose we could create a 4th category, we could call 900-1300 "standard" and below 900 "beginner" as the guy above suggests.
If you go onto lichess you'll find your percentage ranking is alot lower than on chess.com... chess.com has done a better job getting casual players to join.

Hi!

A ches.com blitz rating <1100 would be beginner.

Good luck!

I'd say OP’s 1874 is clearly strong intermediate, aka the upper end of non-masters, having progressed just past 2/3 of the way from lower intermediate(1200) to master(2200). I think those putting him down are either trying to discourage him from getting a big head about his high rating (always good advice honestly) or else they have a big head themselves about their higher rating. Or statistically more likely, they’re insecure about their lower rating.

There are currently more players rated 100 than rated 800-900+, depending if you’re looking at bullet or rapid or blitz numbers. 400 is the most common rating in all 3 categories, because it’s the rating chess.com starts you off at. They clearly consider 400 the average for beginners, so we should too.

However, the overall average player rating is right around 600. If we average the 3 current average scores from each of the rapid, blitz & bullet game stats, (ranging roughly 590-630) it’s about 614. So 400 is the average beginner, and 615 is the average player, which is still a beginner. One popular metric says beginner is everything under 1200, but clearly there's a vast difference between a 100 and a 1000 rating. So I propose the following level categorization system.

100-300 = lower beginner
300-600 = average beginner
600-900 = strong beginner
900-1200 = upper beginner
1200-1450 = lower intermediate
1450-1700 = average intermediate
1700-1950 = strong intermediate
1950-2200 = upper intermediate
2200-2500 = master
2500-2700 = grandmaster
2700-3000 = super gm
3000-3300 = peak human grandmaster
3300-3700 = superhuman and/or computer grandmaster
3700+ = extra super fuhgeddaboudit grandmaster

Anyway congrats on your hard work and dedication, OP. Keep it up, don't let haters put you off, and mastery is clearly within your reach. I never expect to get that far myself, as someone who is below average even for a beginner. And I just started because I have a nephew and niece getting into it, so I wanted to be able to play them without embarrassing myself too much, lol. We'll see how much I keep at it, when my only real motivation is to beat 10-year-olds! And I'm already doing that haha. But for reference my IQ was supposed to be about 139 in high school (am I bragging? No, full disclosure I'm also neurospicy and it's actually pretty humbling to be "near genius" yet easily bested by every genius you encounter throughout your whole life... and I'm 42 now, meaning I'm also slowing down a bit mentally) so anyway I'm hoping I should be able to "gg" if I can make time for it. Unfortunately, that is a big if.

Also, since the rating system itself has been designed around the number 200 (in that a 200 point difference between 2 players indicates an estimated 75% chance of victory for the better player) I further propose a different supplemental system to categorize all levels of players by simplifying their rating to a smaller level number, mostly on a scale of 1-10, and defined by how many multiples of 200 their rating is. To calculate your level number on this system, you would just divide your rating by 200.

This would assign the following levels to the ratings below:

0.5 = 100, lowest possible rating
1 = 200, aka "level 1"
2 = 400, average beginner
3.07 = 614, current average player (rough estimate)
6 = 1200, intermediate
9.37 = 1874, OP's rating
11 = 2200, master
12.5 = 2500, grandmaster
16.015 = 3203, Magnus Carlsen’s current bullet rating
18.06 = 3612, Stockfish CEGT rating as of April 8th 2024 (obviously not all these ratings were assigned by the same rating systems, but that’s not super relevant in this discussion anyway)

And the more traditional style categories I proposed in my previous comment would translate into these level numbers using this system:

0.5-1.5 = 100-300, lower beginner
1.5-3 = 300-600, average beginner
3-4.5 = 600-900, strong beginner
4.5-6 = 900-1200, upper beginner
6-7.35 = 1200-1450, lower intermediate
7.35-8.5 = 1450-1700, average intermediate
8.5-9.75 = 1700-1950, strong intermediate
9.75-11 = 1950-2200, upper intermediate
11-12.5 = 2200-2500, master
12.5-13.5 = 2500-2700, grandmaster
13.5-15 = 2700-3000, super gm
15-16.5 = 3000-3300, peak human grandmaster
16.5-18.5 = 3300-3700, superhuman and/or computer grandmaster
18.5+ = 3700+ aka extra super fuhgeddaboudit grandmaster

It’s much easier to quickly conceptualize big rating differences on a scale of about 1-10, and this range covers almost all ratings below master level. And master level usually takes at least 5-10 years of intense dedication to reach, which most players will never do.

So it’s nice and simple to just say everyone below master is on a scale of 1-10, and that most masters have 3-5 additional higher numbers they are possibly able to reach. Although there is no upper cap on ratings, there is always a limit to current human capabilities, and it increases relatively slowly. Computers and ai improve much faster, and already surpass human capabilities within purely logical rule-based systems including chess. It may not be long before it dwarfs human chess ratings, but we’ll see.

Simply put, under 1200 is a beginner. Even on this site where the average rating is close to what second graders in scholastic competition usually consider sub-par.

Yes, very simply put. Strange as it may seem, most players don't start anywhere near as young as 2nd grade. But those who do are free to lament or deride the beginner status of the vast majority of players, of course

100

Most people remain beginners their entire lives, regardless of when they began.

You know what I meant, and your response only reinforces it. But if you need clarification, I meant simply that you, and other advanced players who share your attitude, are free to lament and deride the beginner status of the average player all you want. Or was I misinterpreting your point, when you compared us unfavorably to second graders? Are you hoping to make the game look unappealing to beginners by showing them how advanced players have no respect for average players? Respect is a two-way street, so you give it or you don't get it. Do you think you're traveling on that street now?

Welcome back. I didn’t know this was your thread now. I’ve been commenting in it for several years. When it was created, the average rate on this site was about 1100. Now, it is below 700.

Meanwhile, there have been dozens of threads about how to improve and hundreds of comments about sportsmanship. It has been made clear through comments made that a lot of people want to play chess and do not care about getting better. That’s why they remain beginners. There’s nothing wrong with that. If you enjoy playing chess with friends and none of you strive to be strong, its still a good game. You’re still part of our global chess culture.

When I was young an there were still a couple of decades left in the twentieth century, I played a lot of games with family and friends. I also found some enjoyment reading a few chess books. At some point, I started becoming a stronger player than my friends. That motivated me to seek stronger competition. I lost interest in the other games.

I never had a rating in those days. When I finally had a chess rating in my mid-30s it was C Class (in the 1400s). Internet chess still did not exist, although a few computer folks knew how to connect distant computers to play.

Despite occasional ambitions, I never became any better than a strong club player.

The past 25 years, I’ve taught at least 1000 children how to move the pieces. I’ve coached hundreds of them in school clubs and one-on-one. Some have become state champions. A few are stronger than me now. Most just want to play chess with their friends. There’s nothing wrong with that. They will always be beginners because that’s what they want.

Chess is not the only thing in life. Many of those young children have become adults who shine in fields where they pursue excellence. Some are returning to chess with their own children.

what will happen if i am not able to write my last few moves of the game in a chess tournament due to time