Starting rating

It's hard to play 50% losses, but it's much much worse to start with 80% losses, or similar. I mean, the starting rating is 1500, and the first days were really hard, psychologically. I wanted to stop. They do not entice people to learn chess. Doesn't something like 1000 make more sense, regarding encouragement?

Why? Whether it starts at 1000 or 1500 or 2500, it will eventually reach your own playing strength. Beginners should quit if they are this much concerned about losing rating points.

Edit: There must be a very big error in the first sentence, but I could not fix it

Is it not the case that whichever rating that players start out with will end up becoming more or less the average rating? So all you would achieve by lowering the initial rating is deflating the numbers? Can someone explain this with math?

Introducing more variables (randomized or otherwise) produces this effect:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

@Toadofsky Indeed.

@edgedg If you are willing to learn chess, don't concern yourself with rating points. It is true that if your rating is 1200, it would be psychologically better to go from 1000 to 1200 than 1500 to 1200 but as I said, if you want to learn, don't bother with rating. When I start trying out new opening in bullet, I drop for around 200 points and then I always get back over 2000.

Please, the problem is not rating points. The issue is with the win to loss ratio. I'm pretty sure I know a kid who tried chess, but all of his first games were losses, so he felt bad and stopped playing.

If the moral boost for beginners is unachievable, so be it. It's just not obvious to me, this math. Nor do I know if lichess cares for beginners.