What is a Beginner ?

The dictionary defines beginner as : one who is inexperienced ;  a novice

Ofcourse I am concerned with chess here and have noticed from the content in various threads that we dont all have the same definition and many dont seem to go by the dictionary definition either.

Is a beginner a player of a certain level or one who has only been playing a certain time, or number of games ?  ( experience )  If one has been playing for 3 years but only 2 or 3 games per year are they a beginner ?  Would their skill at that point help to define them ? The majority of beginners are weak players , but a few are strong, are they still beginners ? If one has only learned how to play a month ago but has played 30 rated games in that month and has a rating of 1600 are they a beginner ?  When does one stop being classified as a beginner ?  When you have a certain amount of time, or games, or a certain level ?  Perhaps a combination of these things ?  What is a beginner to you ? Do you consider yourself a beginner ? 

I learned to play chess in 1963 , I was ten. I only played a few games a year with friends and never played organized/rated chess. In 1973 I played my first rated games and I dont think many would have called me a beginner since I was playing for 10 years, I certainly didnt consider myself a beginner at that time. However, after being crushed in all my games in my first rated event/experience I DID feel like a beginner ! I guess that I was a beginner at tournament chess, but not chess.  Your thoughts/feelings/definitions ? 

I think there are two types of beginner here: (a) learner beginner  (b) advanced beginner, is that what you had in mind ? 

What I have in mind is to get an idea of what is a beginner to you ? ( and others )  Is a beginner so simple to define as the dictionary definition ? How much "experience" does one need before they are no longer a beginner ? Would that experience be measured by time, or games ? Would their level of play not matter ? I recognize that anyone just starting out in chess and learning the rules/fundamentals of the game are beginners.  I also personally view very weak players as "beginners" and perhaps this is wrong but I do.

I have been playing online now for over 2 years so in that respect I am NOT a beginner but compared to some who have played for years and years I WOULD be classed as one. 

In terms of experience I regard myself a beginner due to my not being very good ... 

Me too. If someone has been playing for years, but is still no better than when they started out I don't think they deserve to be called an "intermediate" or "advanced" player...

This is an interesting topic I have pondered several times. I first learned how to play chess with my father in my late teens (mid 1970's) I played for several years learning from him only, however he read Fischer and Spassky and after a couple of years I could I could beat him quite often and considered myself a "decent" player. I stopped in the 1980's until I came to chess.com in the beginning of this year. When I started playing here online, I did truly feel like a beginner again, my first couple of months I fell down to the low 800's and it has been a long climb up this year. I have now played over 400 games here, and don't consider myself a beginner, but I am a novice when I look at the levels of many players on this site. I am currently ready to break the 1600 barrier and feel pretty good about my playing ability to maintain this level. It is however a little intimidating when I start playing people in the 1700 and 1800 ratings. There are many games I have played here when I still feel like a beginner!

I remember Josh Waitzkin saying something like " you'll play chess a lifetime and with every match you'll have something new to learn" For me , a begginer is the one that knows the basics of chess.

0-1200 beginnners
1200- 2000 good players
2000 advanced /profi players

But if we take it as reffered to what Josh said then we all beginners.

I learned how the pieces move in 1968 (I was under 10), and played as a beginner until 1975. Then, by discovering chess books I learned something that did not exist in my neighborhood among my friends and family: skill in conducting an attack, controlling the center, developing your pieces, etc.

A beginner is one that has yet to learn elements of skill. Some are beginners their whole life, although they might be considered skilled by family members.

Is a chess.com 1700 rated player a beginner?

It's an interesting thought, and while contemplating it I have discovered that what I consider 'beginner' is in fact incorrect when we look at the terminology.

In my mind, I've always seen beginners as people playing below a certain level (not a well-defined level, however) but of course this is not the true sense. I realise that truly, there are both weak and strong beginners and actually they are defined by experience. So, in this vein, the number of games someone plays (coupled with any other chess experience) would define a beginner.

Perhaps this is easier to comprehend when we consider a synonym of beginner, 'novice'.

That sound techincally correct to me. However, although maybe not technically very accurate, I would still define beginner as a weak player.

I didn't think too much about this, but probably a player for whome hanging pieces to one move captures is a serious part of his/her game could be considered a beginner for my standards. Oh wait, would that make me a beginner in blitz ? I can't let that happen.

So a revised standard would be, a player for whome hanging pieces to one move captures in long time controls is a serious part of his/her game.

Chess is a craft (for a few, an art) that involves knowledge of many specific skills.

I have been playing over 50 years but I am a beginner in the Catalan Opening, in formulating long term plans in closed positions, in B vis N endgames, and lots more.

Put me against a good player and I'll prove it !  

"A beginner is anyone who is worse than me."

You'll recall the Rael's discussion which proposed a possible set of ranking class labels for Chess.com:

To me a beginner is someone who is still learning how the pieces move, Up until this point they are unlikely to have played any competetive games.

Once you start pitting your wits against opposition you could consider yourself a novice.

At what rating you consider novice/intermediate/skilled, is another matter altogether.

You've got your casual player who may play for many years and still be a beginner (and just not know it because he beats "everyone" including his uncle), and then you've got your serious player who enters organized play for federation ratings.

The Serious Beginner will usually knock the stuffings out of any Casual Player he meets.

I'd hazard a USCF otb number like 1250-1350 to still be in the Serious Beginner range.

It's almost a philosophical exercise to try to convert chess.com ratings to something real like USCF, CFC, or FIDE, but I recently noted a turn-based, almost 1400 here wondering if k+q v. k was a draw or not due to all the stalemate possibilities. Definite beginner.

If you're 1600 turn-based here you may well still be in that Serious Beginner stage.

Chess has so many levels of skill we don't have enough words to describe each tier of player.  This is where semantic questions like this pop up.

Language, or more accurately, the human mind, is amazing to be able to communicate ideas with symbols and sounds.  We all understand the concept itself even if it took a whole sentence instead of just a word to communicate it.  This is why It's fairly useless to try and find a better way to say it.  For example synonyms like novice and rookie also relate to experiance. 

To find out how much weight each person gives the word beginner in experiance vs skill is interesting, but more of a semantics question than something to do with chess. 

When I use the word beginner, I mean they have just begun the aquisition of knowledge + it's application (skill) in that area regardless of how much time they've spent in that area.

Therefore a 20 year veteran with a 1000 rating I would describe as a beginner.

Because I understand it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, I may give more context when communicating this idea to another person.  E.g. Frank is a beginner, well, he's been playing for 20 years, but he's rated 1000.

Beginner contains "begin", the root of novice means "new" essentially the same thing, different languages.  Both connote a lack of skill but also an expectation of improvement.  So there is a time limit or expiration date, a thing can be new for only so long although I suppose one can re-begin as many times as one wishes.

Unfortunately the chess world has created many terms for those past the expiration date, the "experienced but unskilled", among them "patzer", "fish", and "woodpusher".

Perhaps I can shed some light on the matter, as I have taught beginners for over 21 years......................................................................music.

I have taught hundreds, make that thousands of elementary beginning band and orchestra students how to play musical instruments for over 21 years. Many of them have never even set hand on a musical instrument.  

Now, after one year of study with me, one of two things happens to each child: 1. The child advances to intermediate band/orchestra. 2. The child repeats beginning band/orchestra. I have a  specific set of goals that each child must meet to advance to the next level.

I consider myself a beginning chess player. Is it because I'm rated under 1200 on this site? No. I'm a beginning chess player because I'm still in my first year of study. My goal is to pass the class!  

You see, even though I'm 50 years young, I've never been taught the game, nor read any books on chess. Sure, I knew how the pieces moved on the board, but I knew nothing concerning the principles of play, i.e., center control, rapid development and king saftey.

There are many dufffers in the world who hit and hope their way around a golf course. The same can be said for woodpushers and chess.

As a broader approach to the idea of BEGINNER, the Extended Personal Profile scheme distinguishes between LEARNING ATTITUDE and COMPETITIVE ATTITUDE ...

Learning Attitude { Tick one }

( ) Determined to improve at chess

( ) Social player

( ) Serious player

Competitive Attitude { Tick any that apply }

[ ] Never resign!

[ ] Resign when appropriate

[ ] Let ‘lost’ games time out

and leaves ABILITY to be measured by rating.

When you get racked over and over again.