How Differently Do an 1850 and a 2000 Think? | Game Analysis Comparison Part 2

In terms of playing capability, 150 rating points definitely shows a difference, although it's not a huge one. But does it really show a difference in how a game is analyzed? We'll be exploring this in this post. Last time I did this, I compared the analysis of a 1200 and a 2000, which you can read here: https://www.chess.com/blog/colorfulcake/how-differently-do-a-1200-and-a-2000-think-game-analysis.

We found out, unsurprisingly, that 800 points seems to make a large difference. But soon, that 800 points will very likely be shortened to 700 points... and then 600 points... and then the gap will keep on getting smaller and smaller... That's my prediction, because the 1200 who participated in the experiment was @Excheqquer. He's testing out the chess.com study plan, and so far it's been giving him amazing results, with a long win streak since he started studying for hours a day. You can watch as he details his journey to the top in his blog here: https://www.chess.com/blog/Excheqquer

Refocus. So, as you've figured out by now, we will be comparing the analysis of an 1850 and a 2000. But first a highly necessary note.

DISCLAIMER: I'M NOT EXACTLY 2000. NEITHER IS sleeping_giant1 EXACTLY 1850 EITHER.

There we go. I dropped below 2000 yesterday. Our drowsy gargantuan is a little over 1850, so the gap isn't exactly 150 points. But for the sake of this, lets just assume that it is, ok?

Now let's refocus yet again. Our lab rat today is @sleeping_giant1, who has happily analyzed his game and sent it to me . We'll see how well it holds up against my analysis (which isn't as great as it could be for a 2000, though. I'm learning along the way too, and I do this blog for all of us.). 

Mr. sleeping_giant1 actually had a peak rating of 2011, so he's not to be underestimated. my peak rating is only 20-30 points higher, so our skill levels are actually much closer than I thought. I don't do my research early enough. However it seems that he doesn't have much experience playing rapid on chess.com, as on his profile you can see that he's only played a total of 404 games (as of this writing). His opponent, @Bogatov935, however, has just reached 5000 games. Bogatov's rating actually went down almost 200(!!!) points in less than a week(!!!!!). Unless I made a mistake, but I think that I counted right.

 In any case, we will watch as sleeping_giant1 comments on his game and then, weirdly, we will comment on his comments. And then we'll do the same with my analysis. Unlike last time there will only be one version of the analysis from sleeping_giant1, and I think it was with the engine but I'm not completely sure, so I will ask. Here we go!

I have to say that it's very good analysis and insightful to what thoughts were whirring around in his head. Particularly his explanations of what was happening in the middlegame showed good understanding. However there are flaws, as there always are. We are human, after all. I'll point out a few slight problems in the opening comments. Let's look at the very first one.

"I've been an avid Sicilian player for years, but recently I've adopted a more solid approach." 

This isn't wrong, but many (including me) would argue that double king-pawn is no more solid than the Sicilian. There's reasons for this. Yes, the Sicilian is very prone to dynamic and tactical struggles, we have to admit that. However, that does not mean it's solid. Simply because there's more chances for you to mess up and lose immediately in just a single move does not mean that it's not a solid opening. If you play correctly, the Sicilian is a solid opening. In the end, it all depends on how you play, since you play the opening. White only gets a slight advantage in reasonable lines of the Sicilian, and the reason that you see so many flashy sacrifices and combinations is because one side makes an inaccuracy or mistake. You could counterargue that openings like the Caro-Kann or the Fort Knox of the French Defense are much more "solid" and easy to draw with. But that's not how I think of the term solid. Both sides have good reasons, and that's how I think of it.

Next.

"We stray off the beaten path as early as move 2. I have to say I was rather taken aback."

If "the beaten path" means the most common moves, then this is true. But 2. c3 is actually a book opening, however uncommon it may be. It's called the Macleod Attack, and I'll explain more about it in my analysis. There is theory on this opening and it is the general consensus that this move gives away the advantage and black gets a slight edge. The !? annotation given is unwarranted.

There are a few more little blemishes on this analysis, but as I said earlier this is already very good. If you can find some problems with the annotations, congratulations. You can post them in the comments. I'm not going to continue rambling on about this since this is already very long, but let's get to my analysis now.

A few differences and similarities between the annotations to point out:

• sleeping_giant1 was the one who played the game so he knew what he was thinking during the game. I didn't have this knowledge so I had to understand what was going on in the game and explain it.
• Probably only the major difference between the annotations was that I was more in-depth and explained a bit more, but it isn't that big of a difference. On some moves he explained a lot, and on some I explained a lot too.
• We both weren't perfect. Obviously.
• On move 15 in the variation with 15. Rh4 we had different replies that were both winning, but one move was more accurate, and this happened a few times.                                                                     

     Other than that, I think that our annotations were similar in both variations and picking apart the game. We can concluded that a 150 rating points difference does make a difference, with some more understanding and thoroughness, but overall it isn't a large difference, less than when playing chess.

That's over, so let's do some announcements.

 The series where I analyze the games of readers will not be continuing because we have this series. Why analyze a game and post it when it can be much more interesting with multiple analysis from different people?

Also, if any of you reading this also blog, and you have any ideas for anything interesting to do for our blogs, that would be great. This series started with me and Excheqquer analyzing one of his games, and that worked out well, so I'm enthusiastic to do more!

I hope you enjoyed this, and I'll see you next time!