Differences between 200-400-600-800?

Because you play way too fast!

You must play each move like if it was the most important move of your life every time!

If you have the basic knowledge and experience just this change of habit should get you to 1000 in the next few months....

And with a bit more experience and knowledge to 1300 here.

But one bad move and it's often (not always of course) over here above 850....

If you reach 1000 and you arent playing 15I10 or better id suggest you do so, it helped me get from 1000 to 1200

yeah see im someone who has practically never played longer than 10+0 and im 1600 but 15 10 would probably help me more

 

Longer time controls help everyone

 

This is an interesting topic. I observed the same: Higher rated players group 400s and 800s together while the low rated players themselves experience huge differences between 400 and 600. Part of it probably has to do with rating distance. If you are an 1800 rated player, you will crush a 700 rated player just as easily as a 400 rated player. I have the same feeling the other way around, players rated 2000 or rated 2400 are the same to me. They are indistinguishable to me.
The second factor that comes to mind is that there is some truth to the idea that a 400 is approximately the same skill level as a 600. Both players play a blunder or a mistake every other move, which leads to a much higher variance. And most of the players at that level haven’t even played enough games for a reliable sample size. My guess is, due to a higher number of games played, that a 1600 rated player will beat a 1300 rated player much more consistently and reliably than a 700 rated player will beat a 400 rated player.

My suggestion is that the core problem is the phrasing of ‘blunder less’. It's a bit reductionist, or at the very least incomplete. When I classify players I make a distinction between their level of understanding and their ability to perform (or to play at full focus/attention). 

Level of understanding
Simply put, some moves require a higher level of understanding than other moves. And every player has a ceiling, the highest they can perform given full attention and focus. If my understanding is at a 1800 rating level, I will not find moves that require a 1900 level understanding. This is of course more of a conceptual idea than a measurable qualification system, but you get the idea.

Ability to perform
The second dimension is a player’s ability to perform, by which I simply mean, how consistently they play the best moves they should be able to find (at their level). This is a measure of the distribution of how well one plays. 

Two players can be rated 600, one being a 600 that won't find moves above that level but plays at the top of their abilities and the other with a better understanding (understanding at a 1000 rating level), playing more unnecessary blunders due to lack of focus.  They are the same rating level but with a different profile.

In my games I can encounter players that don’t understand the game almost as well as I do, but are more consistent. I should be able to outplay them as long as I don’t mess it up. I also face opponents that can play better moves than I can, but they lack consistency. In that case, I can win by playing solid for as long as I need to until they mess up. 

Back to your statement about 400s and 600s being the same level. A good understanding of principles or openings doesn’t really matter if you still hang pieces occasionally. I do believe that the difference between a 600 and a 400 has a lot to do with their ability to perform to the best of their abilities, which leads to the oversimplification they should ‘blunder less’. 

I see huge difference between 800s and 400s. Especially if we are talking about blitz ratings. 800s can play 30 move games without 1 move blunders, 600s can't do that. Watch two 600 rated players play 10 thirty move games and they will make a 1 move blunder in each and every single one of them. On the plus side, 600s will look like they are trying. If I look at 400 or sub 400 elo chess games I genuinly can't tell if they are playing bad on purpose or not. Their games look fake. When I watch 600s at least it is obvious that they are not faking games. I think ratings around 500-600 are pretty stable if the player has played at least 100 games of chess. My own rating have always been oscilating about 150 points and I am now rated 1900 rapid, 1800 blitz.

Also, I am 1800 blitz and I can give a full queen to a 400 and win every single game, they will never beat me, on the other hand, if I give a full queen to 800-900 blitz players I have a decent chance of losing that game. 

This is a lot bigger of a conversation than i thought lol

When I watch Naroditsky's speedrun 1000 rated players look similar to 2000 rated players. They both get blown of the board and they look like toddlers who have just learned how the pieces move. 

Hi guys. I wanted to jump In and post in this thread because I believe I have some valuable insight into Elo. I am currently around 800 rating, and began my climb from 300 a month ago. I want to point a few things out as I’ve played other games with elo ranking systems and have achieved high master and even grandmaster in sc2. In terms of what separates ratings, it’s important to note, access to effective engines and game reviews destroys all notions of what an 800 is to anybody who broke that rating more than maybe 8 years ago. For instance, my buddy who is just starting his grind, is losing consistently to 250-300 players and can mop the floor with the AI player rated 1000. The baseline of player increases as access to developmental tools increases. The average player is significantly better than pre readily available analysis. My climb so far, the biggest things I’ve noticed, are less hanging pieces, and less direct tactics. Generally, the lower I was, the more readable the attacks were. Never a discovered check or skewer, just basic things that can be deflected like scholars mate attempts

Having read through all the posts for this topic, thought I would throw my hat into the ring as very few comments from players who are at these levels 200 - 400 - 600 - 800 that the original poster is asking about.

My Rapid is around 470 at the moment while my daily is almost double that. I am playing mainly 30min games and still feel the time restraint, presume most of my blunders come from that pressure and conclude I am a slow thinker but enjoy the game in a one sitting approach.

I am a few weeks in from a 50 year gap, and only knew how the pieces moved and a few ways to finish off the games, so dropped below 300 rapid with my first few games, and decided to start at the beginning and have some kind of an opening to get me through and survive so I can make the games last longer, as well as some puzzle practice to make me more aware of possibilities.

Around 300 - 400 I have found it is about survival, pieces get thrown at you in poorly thought out one or two piece attacks that are fairly easy to read and defend, the opponent quickly blunders or just quits after this, so am learning that counter attacking is a powerful way to play through this level.

Playing against higher ratings, 600+ Rapid, I find that the openings are more calm and much more about getting the troops into position before the big fight to control the centre of the board, though still get some jabs at my defences with I piece probes and attacks that seem a little shallow or a fail to understand the reason for them. I loose most of these games by being outplayed during the middle phase, lacking tactics and not understanding what my opponent is up to until it is too late, though sometimes manage to defend and then counter attack when there are fewer pieces on the board and things seem a little simpler.

I have not played anyone over 700 rapid yet so can not comment on that level, but would get blown away in the middle game presuming it lasts that long I expect.

My observations are that everyone blunders, but that is not always the reason games are won or lost. There is a massive gap in knowledge between each of these levels that higher ranked players seem to have forgotten. Quality information is hard to come by that deals with these gaps without getting so technical that it goes right over your head. A simple to learn opening strategy that can cope with anything that gets thrown at it, and some tactical knowledge to have at least a bit of an idea of how to approach the mid game seem hard to come by. This is where I think most help is needed from players like myself. A lot of our mistakes are dismissed as blunders but they are lack of knowledge, we dont even know what we dont know at this level.

Until 700, just blundering less, more consistent at tactics.

I agree!!

I'm 817 after like 7 months and had a huge blockage in getting out of 600s, got through 700s really quick. I rarely lose because I was beaten in a positional game. I rarely even lose because of tactics. I mainly lose from blundering and time. When I moved my time control up I went on a 7 game winning streak. I think this is is most 800s.

200-400 - they just dont understand the dynamics of the game, moves are random. They move cause they have to. No plans. Serial Blundering

500-650 - they know an opening variation, they cant do middlegames so your rarely get close endgames. Mate on the board in middlegame mostly because they cant spot when theyre being mated. 2 big blunders per game, and very prone to blunder spiraling

650- pretty much 800 and something - they can beat any newbie. They know an opening to a not so bad degree. More patience and middlegame understanding, rerouting, space, kings safety, piece activity. 2 Blunders a game max, , with not so much blunder spiraling. The biggest change is that after 700 or so, one learns that losing a pawn (unless its a gambit) is also a very serious blunder. At this level your start playing a few endgames, so pawn structures and keeping pawns becomes visible for the first time. Tactically a bit better. At this level I win by getting into my opponents position. Which takes time. At this level your start to play actual endgames besides 2 queens or 2 rooks because the game got close till the end.

First off. Most people that take up chess either professionally or as a hobby typically don’t start off at 200. Usually people start, the lower rated ones, at around 400-600 rating and can get to about 800 rating without much effort.

What is the difference between a player that starts at 200 rating and a player that starts at 400 rating?

I would say 90 percent of the time a person only rated 200 is someone that created a new account and is purposely losing so he can troll on the forums.

The other percent of the time is just lack of chess aptitude, which some people have. The goal for these people would be to be increase their board vision by playing lots of games with the longer time controls, which sadly, most people don’t do.

I know people that are rated about 800 on blitz at chess.com and I’m surprised when I hear they are rated that low people these same people often play very solidly with me otb.

Differences between 400-800 stem from having or not having practical experience. The fact that they are still that low is because they often make silly mistakes. I play with two different 800 rated players and one of them often makes silly mistakes or just drops pieces for no compensation. The other invested a lot of time learning various openings but when taken out of book he doesn’t know what to do.

Sadly these two will never improve because they don’t review their losses.

Actually one of the two is improving because he plays longer time controls at another club he goes to and goes against strong players.

I noticed when I play him with these time controls he just blitz’s out his moves and I end up destroying him.

I for example am learning how to play at longer time controls. I’m starting with 30 minute games. I noticed I destroy people who match my speed but when faced with people who think, I tend to lose. So I have to train myself to think of candidate moves on their time, and spend more time on my moves when they are thinking more about their moves.

So I can say with certainty that time management is a big part of the game and beginners especially need to think a long time about their moves with a checklist of things to go over when thinking about their moves.

I learned chess slowly because I wasn’t given a check list nor did I read any books. I learned strategy by just playing stronger opponents. If I were to give advice to my younger self I would say spend time analyzing your losses and go over master games, and play games with longer time controls.

Maybe you can try to focus on the moves that do make sense to you. I also find that I may not understand the complex lines the engine suggests.

In my personal opinion I believe you can lose the game before it starts for example say your a 800 and your opponent shows up on screen and before anything our eyes go right to his rating . You see 850 and you instantly get a little nervous knowing you’re in for your money on this one . Same goes for when you see a lower rating , you instantly think you’re going to smoke this guy and you don’t take your moves with much thought and take a loss . Stop looking at their rating and play each game like magnus is in front of you . When I did that I started to get more wins . 

next I’ve noticed that the better the competition seems to miss game changing moves right in their face . Meaning we are both still blundering . Why it happens I would say that the better you start to get you begin to have a routine to open that you like and you don’t even really defend what your opponent is setting up . All your doing is putting your pieces in your go to position and you miss a free queen . so set up your pieces but pay attention cause the plans could change. 

I stumbled upon a good opening , and started using it for around 7 games in a row . Smashing guys and forcing them to quit . Then when I got a higher rating that all came to an end quickly as within 3 moves I knew they knew what I was up to . Or maybe they were just paying attention and defending better . Either way I went on a losing streak because I kept wanting that opening to work till I realized I need to start playing in the moment . 

it takes time man. The higher you go you must know your playing guys who are just as dedicated as you . You’re no longer playing the guy who makes an account and forgets about it in 3 days . So you have to start seeing your moves in advance . And their moves . Loook at it like this . Every move you make has a purpose . At the higher levels so does your opponents . He ain’t just moving pieces because he wants to. He’s setting something up . Look at why he did that move there’s always a reason and when you spot it you will be able to stop it 2 moves ahead. I’ll end with a big game changer for me was when I started to really attack their pieces with multiple pieces. Meaning I had 2 of 3 pieces ready to kill one piece and also having 2 or 3 pieces defending a piece . . Heck remember at one time we were all the guy who had to keep losing our castle / rook to the dang knight 20 or 40 times before we realized we needed to get him an out option before than knight puts the king in check and takes the castle for free……damn that move always boiled my blood but that comes with time and eventually you see it and learn. . It will click if you want it too . It’s just all about really focusing on what they are up too and eventually the will open up the board for you to finish them . Defense wins ball games . If they can’t finish you then they can’t win

This is exactly what i believe these U1000 players do, they just blunder less the higher you go, the only big other thing between 200 and 800 for me is that a 200 will play 1.h4 or some other nonsense while an 800 will try to play principled, development etc