what's the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?

it may be but i was hoping for a first source. there was no link.

Enough said.

I think we at 1300-1400 has big problems with many openings, both because of lack of positional understanding and also because we do not really know many openings well. If I survive the opening, I may have a good game, but this weekend was horrible.  A 2034 and a 1730 crushed me after bad opening errors, due to lack of knowledge and making positional and material blunders . The games never became interesting. It was too ugly.  The experienced players knows their openings. 

 

In Daily-correspondence I perform a lot better, because I have the openingbook.

1300 players generally have no clue how to convert winning endgames and will often manage to lose endgames that should be drawn. 1800 players are generally somewhat competent at elementary endgames.

1300s also tend to get so wrapped up in their own plans that they often forget to think about what their opponent is trying to do.

Another important difference is that 1300s often commit multiple fatal blunders every game. 1800s still do this occasionally but it’s much less common.

I’m about 1850 now and I used to be 1300 years ago, so this is at least what the difference was for me.

I’ve played many 2000+ players, and I think the main difference between me and them is the fact that they are far more tactically accurate than me, pay better attention to detail, and have better opening knowledge and better grasp of positional subtleties.

Simply put 1800 rating is great for a mediocre player, average for good players and mediocre for the elite.

In rapid, the 1800 can plan a game and the 1300 can't, by and large. The 1300 tries all the time to win on time and so is incapable of improving. The 1800 is usually here to play chess and has more pride and understanding than to like winning on time. The main difference is the ability to plan and not to constantly blunder.

I was gonna put that. Good job.

But seriously,  I think it's strategic understanding, that's the main difference. 

1800-1900 = half decent players. imo

The 1300 probably makes dozens of mistakes in a game. The 1800 makes a handful.

Makes less blunders and has better plans in the middlegame idk

1800 rapid is 99.3 or 99.4 on chess.com I been as high as 1892 and consider myself a strong amateur player which I considered between 1800 - 2199 

I have decent knowledge in all parts of the game but  very incomplete, still get caught out often.

 

anything under 2200 is super patzer, please lets not delude ourselves.

A 500-point rating gap is monstrous, at any level.

The stronger player of these two will be superior at all aspects of the game.

Some 1300s play like 1800s, but only in Arena.

Puzzle rush reveals real skill.

So people who think it is worth the mental effort and those who would quit playing if they had to put that much effort into it.

What about this game of nearly 1300 vs 1800+ ?

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/a-draw-in-an-endgame-against-much-higher-rated-player