I would say Under 1000 is a beginner.
Alternatively, consider this list:
1000>: A scrub
1000-1399: A novice
1400-1799: An ok player
1800-2199: A nice player
2200-2599: A professional
2600-2999: An elite
3000+: Silicon monster
I think a 1800 elo player is a lot more than an ok player,it's a 2000 player here!
And a 2200 elo is indeed very nice player.
My blitz rating at chess.com is around 1600. It means I am in the top 10% of all registered players. It means I should win 9 out of 10 matches with RANDOM players. I think it is very good. On the other hand, there are around 120 000 players better than me. So it all depends on point of view. Amongst the whole population, I am very good, amongst skilled players I am just a beginner.
Imo you are around 1400 elo so you are far from your full potential.
meh 1800 rating uscf is like 1500 fide so less than master candidate.That means u are solid but not good player.
1800 uscf = 1700 elo,and that is really strong here,like a 1900 here.
1000-1500 is good, 1500-2000 is great, and 2000 and higher is incredible
L8ke this
600 beginer
800 bad player
800 is not a bad player, depending on how old you are
0 is probably considered beginner. right? 
no, its possible to get a negative performance rating (not a negative rating)
I think the min rating is 200....for CFC at least
oh
wait how do you get that low???? lol
wow
oh
wait how do you get that low???? lol
You want proof of negative ratings?
Random tournament i found on chess.ca (CFC website)
https://chess.ca/crosstable?tournament_check_number=201610023&key=190810
wow i never knew that! thats pretty cool but also hahahaha
We're all beginners lol.
Advanced players start at >2400 - 2500 ratings and are usually titled IM or GM.
But we're talking FIDE/USCF ratings of course.
A chess.com rating obviously means nothing.
@Colby-Covington is right, you know. Most people here are not very good. The notion of beginner is dependent on point of view. If you have a skill someone else lacks, that person is a beginner. If you lack a skill that someone else has, you are the beginner.
Is anyone qualified to decide the meaning of "beginner" for everyone?
It's relative, but I do believe that we are simply all beginners in the eyes of a truly advanced player.
I just played in the Australian Open >2200 bracket shortly after Christmas, and witnessed first hand what actual strength was. A true GM would wipe the floor with 99.9% of all of us without his morning coffee.
When one joins Chess.com, one is asked to classify oneself as New-to-Chess, Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, or Expert. I do not know what the situation was for NoahDr back in 2017, but perhaps the intention was to seek guidance on correct self-classification for Chess.com.
@Colby-Covington is right, you know. Most people here are not very good. The notion of beginner is dependent on point of view. If you have a skill someone else lacks, that person is a beginner. If you lack a skill that someone else has, you are the beginner.
a 1800+ player here is far from a beginner....he/she will destroyed a 1400 elo player easily!
@Colby-Covington is right, you know. Most people here are not very good. The notion of beginner is dependent on point of view. If you have a skill someone else lacks, that person is a beginner. If you lack a skill that someone else has, you are the beginner.
a 1800+ player here can beat easily 95% of the players on this site!
You mean 1874 here? well it's close to 1700 elo or 1800 uscf....
it should beat the computer here at level 7 if you have a strong computer (i5 at 3.5 giga hertz with 8 gig of RAM.