Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

2200 vs 2700


  • 5 months ago · Quote · #42

    waffllemaster

    Wow, that's awesome, good job!

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #43

    aronchuck

    FCE is Fundamental Chess Endings by Muller and Lamprecht.  Very good, almost readable encyclopedia for endgames.

    But I much prefer Jesus De La Villa's 100 Endgames You must know.  He explains them well in words as well as variations and makes the whole subject rather less dry.

    There is a big gap between 2400-2500s and 2200s also.  These players score 

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #44

    aronchuck

    There is a big gap between 2400-2500 players and 2200s also.  These players score very heavily against 2200s and the games they do lose are usually to the rapid improvers shooting through the ranks.  But the 2700s would beat even these players 90% plus of the time.  They really are playing the game on a much higher level.  I think the average 2200 probably has about 80% of their knowledge of the game.  The other 20% is obviously very important but they far outshine 2200s in all the skills such as calculating and practical decision making.  And very importantly they do blunder a lot lot less.   I throw away so many points from good positions against 2400s its embarassing.  But I hardly ever do against 2000s and 2100s.  What is it about their play that can induce mistakes?- it must be something because I'm convinced this is a real phenomenon experienced by a lot of other players too.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #45

    aronchuck

    I once went through Fisher's 60 memorable games really slowly trying to predict the movs and calculate the variations for myself.  I was surprised that I nearly always understood his move and chose the same one maybe 30 out of 35 times (an average length game).  The trouble is the moves that weren't his could be good, bad, indifferent, positionaly unsound, tactically wrong etc.  It is those few moves in a game that make the difference and it only takes 1 slip to throw away the whole game.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #46

    brankz

    Lisztae wrote:

    I've been thinking. At the lower levels 500 points is a huge difference. An 1800 can win virtually every game against a 1300 without breaking a sweat.

     

    But is that also true at the higher levels? Can your average 2700 really sweep aside a 2200 like it's nothing? To be 2200 I guess you'd have to have a really profound knowledge of the game, perhaps that gives you decent drawing chances if you play safe?

     

    If any 2200 (or close) is reading this, how would you fancy your chances? If you're that good, do you still feel like there's a whole higher echelon of players you have virtually no chance against? 

     

    Edit: I mean FIDE ratings, not online ratings.

    a 2700 would beat a 2200 in the same manner as a 2200 would beat 1700. 

    also don't really think 2200s have a "profound" understanding of chess...... 2700? yes. 

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #47

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    manfredmann wrote:
    HattrickStinkyduiker wrote:
    Rumo75 wrote:

    Having digested all of these books may be of less use than simply being a strategically limited, but very tough player.

    true, also I was 2200 at one point and I have no idea what BCE and FCE are.

    BCE is Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings. Most people wouldn't know that unless they're old  I suspect that FCE is a typo and should be FCO, Fundamental Chess Openings, similar to NCO (Nunn's Chess Openings), MCO (Modern Chess Openings) and ECO (Encyclopedia of Chess Openings).

    I had the version revised by Benko ever since i was a kid. 

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #48

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    Ubik42 wrote:
    Rumo75 wrote:
    Mersaphe hat geschrieben:

    A 1300 player is more likely to get "lucky" against an 1800 compared to a 2200 rated player's chances against a 2700. At the lower levels players will make more frequent blunders and miscalculate things

    Yes. But the 2200 rated player is far more likely to be able to capitalize on far smaller mistakes. An extra pawn can be enough to beat the 2700 guy. 

    As someone said earlier in this thread, 500 points is 500 points it doesnt matter where it is. Its just math.There is nothing more or less likely about 2700 vs 2200, or 2200 vs 1700, or 1700 vs 1200.

    The win percentage is what the ratings tell you, because thats how the rating is determined in the first place. Its really quite simple.

    If the 2200 player was winning more often against the 2700 player, the rating would change to reflect that, and he would become a 2300 player.

    It seems like 500 points is 500 points but you have to understand that the higher you go the higher the diminishing returns.  A 50 point gap at the 2700+ level is huge whereas it's almost insignificant at club level. 

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #49

    CP6033

    a 2200 is a very good player, but could hardly have hope of beating a 2700. take the world team cup, 2500 players get crushed by 2700's no sweat at all. There is some though that could win, but i really doubt it

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #50

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    Here Kasparov outplays an almost FIDE Master in a simul:

    Annotations mine though I didn't look at this game for nearly as long as I should have. 

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #51

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    The time pressure blunder was obviously 31...a4

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #52

    DrNyet

    I've been surprised that even "regular" GMs seem to be awed by the ones at the top. I remember Joel Benjamin talking this way, perhaps about Kasparov (in Benamin's book "American Grandmaster"), and some other examples by GMs I can't recall at the moment. One would think a GM would be in awe of no one. OTOH there have been those proposals to create a Super GM title or similar.

    Regarding the strength of top players, I find it remarkable that they are able to play credible games against computers.

    Also, I believe someone in this thread mentioned that above a certain level the K factor decreases, so that a 500 point gap at the high levels is more significant than at lower. Many posters seem to overlook this -- or is it not true for FIDE ratings?

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #53

    CumminsTomic

    If Carlsen breaks the 2900 rating, there will be 200 point gap to a weak 2700 player Laughing

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #54

    Jion_Wansu

    2200 vs 2700 is the same as

    1200 vs 1700

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #55

    DrCheckevertim

    Jion_Wansu wrote:
    2200 vs 2700 is the same as 1200 vs 1700

    In terms of winning odds... maybe.

    But in terms of work, study, talent, understanding, and experience... there is a much bigger difference between 2200-2700, than 1200-1700.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #56

    aronchuck

    @DrNyet is correct in that when you reach 2400 your K factor drops to 10 from 15 in FIDE.  This means that the gap is wider.  If a 2500 beats another 2500 they get 5 points added to their grade.  If a 2200 beats another 2200 they get 7.5 points to their grade.  So the 500 point gap is not quite the same as it means you would have to win a lot more games to close it at the higher level.  

    I am unclear as to whether the knowledge gap is the same.  I doubt it because all a 1200 needs to do to increase his rating substantially is to stop blundering away pieces.  This would probably close at least half the gap at that level.  The 2200 has to do a lot more to reach 2700 than cure just a few simple things in their game.  In fact in that case the number of things to learn would be huge but also the ability to calculate would have to increase hugely.  So I think the difference between a 2700 and 2200 is larger than the gap between a 1700 and 1200.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #57

    Sangwin

    aronchuck wrote:

    @DrNyet is correct in that when you reach 2400 your K factor drops to 10 from 15 in FIDE.  This means that the gap is wider.  If a 2500 beats another 2500 they get 5 points added to their grade.  If a 2200 beats another 2200 they get 7.5 points to their grade.  So the 500 point gap is not quite the same as it means you would have to win a lot more games to close it at the higher level.  

    I am unclear as to whether the knowledge gap is the same.  I doubt it because all a 1200 needs to do to increase his rating substantially is to stop blundering away pieces.  This would probably close at least half the gap at that level.  The 2200 has to do a lot more to reach 2700 than cure just a few simple things in their game.  In fact in that case the number of things to learn would be huge but also the ability to calculate would have to increase hugely.  So I think the difference between a 2700 and 2200 is larger than the gap between a 1700 and 1200.

    I would think natural ability and a passion for the game would take a person from 1200 to 1700 with very little book reading and memorization required.  @2200 you probably know all the fundamentals, theory behind the openings as well as several main and side line varients.  Basicaly strong in from opening to endgame with a style of your own developed.  I was surprised to find out Dan Heisman lives close to me and with all his accomplishment and opportunity had reached 2200.  I wonder what it is that seperates the 2200 rated player from the 2499 rated player.  

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #58

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    Sangwin wrote:
    aronchuck wrote:

    @DrNyet is correct in that when you reach 2400 your K factor drops to 10 from 15 in FIDE.  This means that the gap is wider.  If a 2500 beats another 2500 they get 5 points added to their grade.  If a 2200 beats another 2200 they get 7.5 points to their grade.  So the 500 point gap is not quite the same as it means you would have to win a lot more games to close it at the higher level.  

    I am unclear as to whether the knowledge gap is the same.  I doubt it because all a 1200 needs to do to increase his rating substantially is to stop blundering away pieces.  This would probably close at least half the gap at that level.  The 2200 has to do a lot more to reach 2700 than cure just a few simple things in their game.  In fact in that case the number of things to learn would be huge but also the ability to calculate would have to increase hugely.  So I think the difference between a 2700 and 2200 is larger than the gap between a 1700 and 1200.

    I would think natural ability and a passion for the game would take a person from 1200 to 1700 with very little book reading and memorization required.  @2200 you probably know all the fundamentals, theory behind the openings as well as several main and side line varients.  Basicaly strong in from opening to endgame with a style of your own developed.  I was surprised to find out Dan Heisman lives close to me and with all his accomplishment and opportunity had reached 2200.  I wonder what it is that seperates the 2200 rated player from the 2499 rated player.  

    Fewer holes in their understanding, better at preparing against specific opponents (a big deal at master level and above), and more chunks committed to memory (a GM has 200,000 on average whereas a FIDE master has 25,000 or so) so less of a need to analyse variations as the source of their "intuition" is better developed.  Also better at time management. 

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #59

    rtr1129

    The 3200 player doesn't think the 2700 player has a "profound knowledge" of chess. Really, asking a question with an empty word like "profound" in it is kind of pointless.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #60

    rtr1129

    The GM title should be updated. Soon you can be 400 points behind the world #1 and be a GM. The GM title should mean something. If the requirement was 200 points within the world #1, then that says a GM could score 1 out of 4 against the world #1.

Back to Top

Post your reply: