What Elo is beginner

No it's not silly at all when you consider the goal of the Elo rating is to give one a clue about the overall level of a player, which can be named, in common language, "beginner" and other such names.

The fact there are various versions of the Elo rating system changes nothing to it, and it's yes silly not to understand OP meant chess.com rating and it's also silly to call silly people who are asking questions because they do feel they don't understand fully how everything works with the ratings.

Ill say 1000

I would say, you're no longer such a beginner (or you then become the real chess beginner), when you lose most of the games you lose, for chess (understanding) related reasons, and not for a lack of attention or a rush to play the first move you see.

The range of ratings where this happens may vary depending on wether we are talking about online ratings (Lichess, Chess.com...) or OTB ratings (FIDE, USCF...).

As for here on Chess.com, I'd say one gets there (not anymore such a full beginner) between 800-1200 Elo. But that's just me saying so.

What he asked is silly. Twisting his words into something that he didn't ask, doesn't make the original question any less silly.

The word "beginner" refers purely to time and knowledge, not at all to skill.

There being various different rating scales and him not specifying which he is asking about does indeed serve to invalidate his question.

Tell me again what the "chess.com" rating is? Last time I checked, there were many and they do not even remotely line up with one another.

For all I know, he understands perfectly how ratings work. I don't see how understanding how ratings work is relevant here.

On the other hand, writing in 5 different colors (most of which make the text unreadable) is definitely not silly.

I worded this wrong. I meant to say just time, whilst making it clear that time into studying the game would also count. So I didn't technically mean "time and knowledge", I meant something more like "Beginner refers to somebody who has spent little (vague I know but it is what it is) time spent partaking in and/or studying a certain something (in this case chess), as opposed to their actual skill or knowledge acquired during that time.". Something like that anyway. I'm not exactly the best with words to be honest.

Of course not

You probably need your eyes tested though.

My eyesight is not perfect, but dark purple on a black background (which is default) is just awful. Red is only marginally better, and blue isn't good either.

You can't really compare tournament Elo point ratings to the ratings given on chess.com. This is the first thing that has to be distinguished. Apart from this what many (especially beginners struggle to understand is that Chess is a really complex game which takes years to properly master. Some might argue forever) What I mean by this is that there will be many (probably the majority of Chess players) that play already for many years and are still categorized as "beginners" even though they know pretty well how the pieces move! These classification with Elo rating ranges of who is a beginner, intermediate and expert etc. do make sense but have all to be taken with a pinch of salt as a player can have already read many books, done puzzle training and what not in order to become a stronger chess player and this player might have also absolutely improved but still be classified as a beginner according to these rating ranges simply because his/ her peers are so strong. I think it would probably make more sense to call an absolute beginner who barely knows how to move the pieces and has never heard about tactics, strategy etc. a Novice and then everyone beyond that either beginner, intermediate, expert level player...... In Tournament play a beginner it's traditionally a rating level from 1200 - about 1499. On Chess.com the median player has currently a rating of about 400 elo points. Applying the traditional approach here would be a bit of a stretch since almost 74 Million players are having an account on this site and only about 1 Million of these players do have a rating of 1200. This clearly highlights that a beginner rating on chess.com would be much lower. Looking at the curve it would be basically everything between 100- 700 elo points.

It goes without saying that I did not bother read the aggressive multicolour text. Next time try a flashlight in my eyes.

I've been playing for a few years and my elo never has gotten above like 750. Now it's less than 500.

As an amateur I am happy that 63.2% of the members play worse chess than I do. That's about 1600 ELO in the old system; which was more fun in my opinion.

how the heck do you get an elo that high? I lose to 500 people constantly, I can't imagine playing anyone that good.

Just look at your stats, and understand properly what "Percentile" means. Here's your stat-site:https://www.chess.com/stats/live/rapid/chessplayermatt123

Beginner I'd say is 100 to like 1000

Great points, well made. My ego has been devastated that some random person online picked a losing argument against me, yet still managed to make me look so stupid.

A losing argument? But what argument? You said sumthin stoopid, I pointed it out, end of story. Your frustrated multicolour rant is not gona turn poop into gold.

I answered the question on this topic a year and a half ago, and to this day my opinion of myself has remained unchanged: I still consider myself a beginner.

I still keep making stupid blunders, I alternate some good games with indecent ones, I defend in a very bad way - another indicator of being a beginner ( let the experts tell me if I'm wrong ).

So, in my personal perspective, I should still improve a lot before I can think I've moved on to a higher level ("intermediate") . I'd say 1500 by convention to celebrate the leap in quality.