How can I go from X rating to Y rating? (Hot take)

This is one question I see a lot, and one question I no longer answer with any sort of seriousness.

For example: a 1500 player asks, "How can I go to 1600 rating?" or "What's the difference between 1500 and 1600?"

While it seems like a good question, asking what kind of skills are the biggest difference between the ratings, it is impossible to give any one answer because of how inherently different people play. You might have one 1600 who is an endgame buff, while another 1600 who is strong tactically. Or another 1600 who is well versed in an amalgamation of openings, and is usually better off out of the opening. There is no one answer.

At the same time, besides its unanswerability, there is also a sense of un-seriousness, if that makes sense. To me, at least, it feels like the asker is looking for something of a shortcut to get to their rating goal. And while it's always nice to get good faster than others, at some point you'll trip and fall without the solid enough foundations.

One time in a 90 minute time control tournament, I saw a 1900 play the stafford gambit against a 2160. Unsurprisingly, he was destroyed. Normally, for people that want to improve, at least, they will try to play their best against stronger people, usually in the lines they are comfortable with. This way, if they lose, they can learn something from the higher rated player. But this 1900, what do you think he learned? Twenty minutes into the round, he was already down a piece. What is there to learn from this? A prime example of trying to use shortcuts, and a waste of 80 minutes (he got checkmated) for everyone in my opinion.

Especially because of the not-serious feeling that I get from these questions, I don't answer them remotely seriously anymore. Someone on discord last night asked the same thing. I told him to buy eggs. Why eggs? Because you throw them at people who are bad at clownery. 

And if you increase the range, to say, about 400 points, then at that point the higher rated player is just better at EVERYTHING. While you can find the "biggest" difference between the two, what does that do? It doesn't make you as high rated as them, because you will still have to improve on the other aspects. You could have reached the same conclusion even if you DIDN'T ASK. Thus, answering such questions are redundant.

If you really wanted to improve, then what you need to do is find YOUR biggest weakness. Not the biggest difference in skill between you and someone else.

There are many ways to do this, but I favor Axel Smith's (the writer of the woodpecker method) "list of mistakes", where you analyze a number of games (about 100, but it can be less) and come up with your most frequently made mistakes. Categorize them. Tally them up.

BE SPECIFIC! Not "opening mistake", but "forgot theory." or "forgot preparation". They are two different things. When you have that finished, ask yourself why you make those mistakes. Do not consider chess factors, but also health and other outside factors as well. If you didn't calculate as much because you were tired, then why were you tired? Did you eat the wrong food? Did you not get enough sleep? There is always something you can do to improve your chess.

I agree

anyways, how can I reach 1800?

Oi, You are missing something and it is called "Water" without it we will be thinking about it insted of playing chess.

buy eggs i guess...

I have 7 eggs and one hatch into a chick. Man I wish we could keep the little chick but we give it to the farm that has KFC next to it. Oh no the chick.

whats the difference between a 1500 and a 1600, and how can I reach 1600?

What is the difference between a 400 and a 700. And how do I reach 800 if every player plays a Holy mid-game

What if you and your oppent know this. Like most of my game I can play really good games but lose due to him playing the same way but a bit better.

I thought I was the only one with that lol.

How do I get my blitz rating up? i'm stupidly underated on blitz and bullet

I can help anyone who has this question, provided Y is lower than X

and thats why the best advice is "dont hang pieces and you will easily be 2k"

and if we are being honest, thats just advice higher rated players give to not have to go in depth

LAMO

preparation is the action of learning and committing theory to short-term memory.

i usually immediately dominate anyone under 1800 really, proceed to blunder and kill it

lol that is freaking annoying. The majority of the chess community is like this. We all downplay our abilities and the work we have put in to get where we are. That's why people will say, "Anyone below GM level is a beginner" or "To be an IM all you have to do is know some theory" or "You just need to be good at tactics and nothing else to get to Master level". I hate that bull shnike. And when I say "hate" I mean HATE IT. On a surface level, it sounds like they're being humble because they are in a way downplaying there own success but all they're really doing is making other people feel like crap. When a 900 player heres a 2000 player say "To get to 1000, all you need to know is how the horsey moves" the 900 player feels really stupid for still being below 1000. 

This is not a coherent statement. Tactics are... tactics. If you could spot them regularly, you wouldn't be sub-1000 in every time control.

How do I improve from a 2100 to a 2200

yeah.. yeah... i would have the same question..

yes, that's what i was gonna say lol