Just saying, Lichess’s rating system us more inflated the Chess.com’s. So 1000 lichess wil still be like 700 Chess.com. And I straight lost to a guy which is stuck at 1100 4 times in a row.(I am 1900) So people sometimes just like grew some wings and play their best ever chess game.
Also never underestimate your opponent, that will just make you play worse.
You beat a 1000 one time and now you think you're some kind of chess God. Interesting
? The system balances out no matter where you start. Letting people choose is perfectly fine scientifically. If you don't have the mental strenght to withstand bouncing (sometimes I don't 
) then take a break...
To be honest, I think maybe it would be best to start new players at a 100 rating. I honestly thought I was intermediate because I've played a lot of chess against my chess computers. But nothing prepares you for the "what the hell is that!?" wild west of low elo online chess.
Seriously, I'm getting crushed at blitz every time. So I'm either completely terrible at chess (entirely possible) or I've played some weirdly strong players at the lower ratings . Or perhaps they are too unorthodox and inconsistent to maintain a higher rating. I don't know.
To be honest, I think maybe it would be best to start new players at a 100 rating. I honestly thought I was intermediate because I've played a lot of chess against my chess computers. But nothing prepares you for the "what the hell is that!?" wild west of low elo online chess.
Seriously, I'm getting crushed at blitz every time. So I'm either completely terrible at chess (entirely possible) or I've played some weirdly strong players at the lower ratings . Or perhaps they are too unorthodox and inconsistent to maintain a higher rating. I don't know.
if everyone started at 100 then it would be very hard for 100s.
It's psychologically bruising to start with a certain rating and see it fall so far, though. I even gained some rating "achievements" on the way down. That felt like a slap in the face.
At least you can only go up from 100, and people who are not really 100 rated won't stay there for very long.
I think below 1000 everyone is more or less a beginner... Both, the 800 and the 400 player blunder a lot. And who happens to blunder less will win the game.
I tend to agree with the OP in that starting at beginner is a mistake unless you can barely recite the rules. You'll be stuck in a mire of under/over rated opponents for ages, which becomes tedious. Better to start higher and get smashed into the correct ratings band more quickly, unless you get discouraged easily. 800 -1100 is the bog of eternal stench. 
When i was playing casual games,i kept losing and my rating is down 596 starting from 800.What shocks me is their moves are strong.I even thinks that he probably played harder than his rating,so I went for a rapid tournament
I battled someone with 1000 elo,Far more smarter than me.We played as usual,he blundered and i blundered,But at the end i was shocked.I beat him!I beat someone almost double my elo!I was thinking of myself “Is he losing himself on purpose?”,”Is he going easy on me too much that i beat him as a result?”.Those are my thoughts,so i did a little bit of research and peaked some 600 rated ish games played by someone and i discovered something
Some of them Really are playing above their rating.The 1000 elo guy was just the fair rating of his!Some intermediate or advanced players picked “new to chess” to abuse the low elo chess players out there.But many players do this so as a result,they played against eachother,proclaming themselves as “hello im 400 elo pls go easy on mee lol”.This makes me regret picking as “the beginner” of chess.
What I should’ve done is train until intermediate,then pick intermediate.I go to lichess only to find out im 1000 elo.