What rating is considered intermediate?

Just curious if I'm  there yet.

No real answer to this question as it's not set in stone like Master titles.  Personally I consider intermediate the level before expert, and consider experts >1800.  Therefore would call intermediates roughly 1400-1800 range  

My interpretation of the lowest point on the intermediate spectrum would be 1200, having a good understanding of the game and being careful enough to play this knowledge, and the highest point being 1800, having learned advanced openings and strategies and rarely blundering.

1200- You know useful concepts of chess and have a simple opening repertoire. You often lose games on mistakes, but you can be careful enough to play accurately and capitalize on your opponent’s blunders. You could probably beat players 100-200 points above you, but what’s keeping you at 1200 are your mistakes. You need to be completely blunder-free to improve your rating significantly.

1800- You have learned advanced chess strategies and opening theory. The mistakes you make are difficult to spot and from the perspective of lower rated players you play at a similar level to master level. However, while your chess is good, your skills haven’t been refined or expanded enough to beat master level players. Players of this caliber can easily point out small mistakes you make and win on them.

According to the stats graph on chess.com 800 is the mean.... so by that definition 800 must be intermediate... sheesh....  800 players don't look intermediate to me.. but then again I am in the 92 percentile which makes me pretty elite but..... you   have... got.. to... be.... kidding

Thanks!

It is relative
intermediate = like me
high = higher than me
low = lower than me

Beginner ~ sub 1000
Advanced Beginner ~ 1100-1200
Weak Intermediate ~ 1200-1300
Intermediate ~ 1400-2000
Expert ~ 2000-2200

Take a seat, man. You’re 500. Plus, his comment means that even he does not think he is intermediate, hence “you have got to be kidding.”

Stop calling lower-rated players beginners. They aren’t necessarily beginners. Would you call a GM with dementia who still tries to play but has lost most abilities a beginner? Lots of people have played a long time but struggle. Just call them lower-rated if you must.

 

This. I wish I had the excuse of being a beginner...

I don't think there is a specific rating but I would say once you tap out your linear gains from reading a beginner chess book you're there.

Terms like 'beginner' and 'intermediate' are very much terms that were coined in OTB chess. In the 'real world' there are almost no adults with ratings below 900. Around 1000 is just where people usually start. Then it makes sense to name 900-1200 beginners, then some intermediates till 1700/1800 or so etc. Considering that the rating also scales exponentially (2400 to 2500 is a much bigger gap than 900 to 1000) and that players rated 400 on chess.com are not all that different from players rated 900 (they just blunder (even) more frequently), I do think these levels are also applicable to this online environment. 

Since when is 'existing' a measurement of skill? I mean to say that it should not matter how long or how much you've been playing, but that the quality of your play should determine whether you're still a beginner or not. If you give 5 pieces away every game, you're a beginner even if you've tried for 50 years. I've known the rules for Go for years, read a number of books on it, played some, but I'm definitely still a beginner, cause my play is probably objectively terrible. But there's nothing wrong with being a beginner at something. It's not a fixed state of being, cause you can always improve. And it's also not like you can't have fun if you're at the beginner level of play. 

I think of myself as a chess beginner since i only played for a year. However I have put alot of time into chess during this first year. But still one year into chess is not alot when others have played for 10-20 years. 

1. a person just starting to learn a skill or take part in an activity.

    

    

   Sorry, there are people who have played their entire lives and just aren't any good. The term "beginner" is just dumb and kind of offensive. It makes them seem like children or are completely incompetent if they don't take it seriously enough to advance.

    

   Could you please just use "lower-rated"? Is it really that hard? Is there anything wrong with that? Even someone who has tried hard for a couple of years but has absolutely no talent isn't a beginner, they just aren't very good.

I think lower rated is too generic, once you plateau hard you become a non-responder I am one myself.

Tell me again what's wrong with generic? Tell me again how something generic is worse than something that uses a term that's a measure of time to a concept that's a measure of skill?

Non-responsiveness doesn't tell you anything about level of skill. Magnus is probably non-responsive to additional improvement.

But lower rated is not a good term for this. For instance, someone rated 2 000 is still lower rated compared to someone else. Even a regular GM is lower rated compared to a super GM.

At the same time, for someone else, even a 300 rated player is higher rated compared to someone 100 points below.

I mean, beginner or novice is a term that actually tells you that you are probably below 1 000 or 1 200 or something like that. In any case, it tells you more about someone's skill.

For instance, my brother learned the game as a kid, 25 years ago. He played a bit back then, possibly around 50-100 games or a bit more, but he is still a beginner realistically speaking.

Or someone who plays for 20 years and doesn't know how to checkmate with a lone queen or a lone rook is a beginner. Trying to invent some artificial term to hide this is completely pointless. There is no shame in being a beginner.

lower rated and beginner sound too positive like the person may still have a chance of climbing to 2000.

Could 'accuracy average' also factor in with skill level?