What is the difference between a 700 and 2000 player?
Sort:
Is it the ability to think 5-6 moves ahead? Is it the knowledge of strategies or simply thousands of games played? Or all of the above?
Nero21 wrote: Is it the ability to think 5-6 moves ahead? Is it the knowledge of strategies or simply thousands of games played? Or all of the above? In before someone says 1300 hahaha :)
A 2000 player knows what they are doing to some extent, a 700 player doesn't?
Hanging material or leaving pieces undefended.
Certainly stronger players have positional skills that the weaker players know nothing about.
Nov 18, 2018
0
#5
I rather like the posts I made on this topic a few years ago.
Numbers 18 and 20 and 31 here:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-is-a-2000-different-from-a-1200
Nov 18, 2018
0
#6
One interesting thing is (IMO, but based on conversations with all types of ratings) it's basically impossible to imagine a player 400 points worse than you or 400 points better than you.
What I mean is players who are 400 points better seem the same as players who are 600 or 1000 points better. Same thing for players way under you. That's why sometimes GMs will be really surprised at how well an 1800 or 2000 plays, because they may not be able to understand anything below 2200, and so when the 1800 plays like 2200 they're surprised.
---
Anyway, so you ask what a 2000 player is like... not only skills like calculation and knowledge like openings and endgames, but the entire philosophy changes roughly every 400 points. So it's pretty hard to explain, but I think I did a pretty good job (or at least came up with a fun analogy) in that old topic 
stiggling wrote:
I rather like the posts I made on this topic a few years ago.
Numbers 18 and 20 and 31 here:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-is-a-2000-different-from-a-1200
Great answers! I'll post them here.
0110001101101000 wrote:
ThirdCultureKid wrote:
lol, I kinda think you all misunderstood me....What I meant was HOW is a player better than another? Does the 2000 have more foresight? Does he think in more 'advanced' terms?
I already know a 2000 is a GM and a 1200 in a novice guys
Absolutely everything. You want a list of everything in chess? Ok, off the top of my head:
Tactics, strategy, opening theory, endgame theory, practical decisions, sense of danger, fantasy/imagination, evaluation, calculation, visualization, time management, general rules, and when general rules don't apply.
---
In the opening, if the 1200 doesn't blunder into a trap, they will play a few passive moves. This will give the 2000 some targets or at least positional ideas to start to go to work on. The 1200 is oblivious to any of this of course. This is how it usually starts.
Remember being a pawn up for no compensation is easily enough for the 2000 to force a winning endgame. But even so, if the 1200 miraculously doesn't lose any material through the first 10 or 20 moves out of the opening the 2000 will continue to play towards the strengths of their position and the weaknesses of the 1200's position. It's not about what they want, it's about how well they can meet the needs of the position.
The positional pressure will continue to build. The 2000 will tend to have more active pieces and more space (better minor pieces is often a quick and easy way to tell who is better, and to some degree space too). This is leveraged to generate weaknesses like a doubled pawn or weak king or even more passive pieces for the opponent. It builds to the point that winning tactics are unavoidable and the 1200 loses material. Then (if that's not mate already) it's a simple trade down into a won endgame... the 2000 will queen a pawn and give checkmate.
However this long-ish process is more like 1800 vs 2000... 1200 vs 2000 is more usually "oops, I didn't notice the 2000 could capture that" and then with a few extra pieces there's a relatively easy and fast mating attack.
0110001101101000 wrote:
Basically 1200s win and lose based on observation. They know some basic things like "doubled pawns are bad" and "rooks on open files are good." But it's like a bunch of unconnected bits of knowledge they use to help make a move when there's nothing obvious to do (like capture a piece).
Moves are made in isolation. There may be a plan in their head, but it changes move to move on the board (this is also true for a few 100 points up)
---
The 2000 is way beyond playing games based on observation and general rules. Their moves will generally tell a story... and not based on their preferences or strengths, it's what the position requires.
They're not GMs, they still get confused and unsure and things like this. But even when they say they don't understand a position, they're able to make educated guesses as to its nature. And once they've made their best guess, they can coordinate their moves and pieces accordingly.
---
So 1200 vs 2000 isn't really a game for the 2000. The 1200's moves wont tell any story at all, so the 2000 doesn't get a chance to follow a plot. Essentially the 2000 will make a series of reasonable moves until there is a momentary lapse in the 1200's observational skills, then the 2000 wins some material, and the rest is going through the motions.
0110001101101000 wrote:
Colin20G wrote:
The difference between a 1200 and a 2000 is the same (numerically) than the difference between a 2000 and a world class player. In term of playing skill what does that mean?
By itself it doesn't mean anything.
The main difference as I see it though, is that 1200 vs 2000 is a matter of literacy.
2000 vs 2800, they're both literate, but the 2000 is writing average columns at a newspaper, and the 2800 is celebrated genius of an author.
Nov 18, 2018
0
#10
Thinking ahead is not the big difference, 2000 players has a pattern recognition, they see every simple tactics in a seconds without thinking. It's like in math that you know 3x3 = 9 without thinking. Also same with other common positions.
Very strong tactical knowledge. Solid foundations of positional knowledge and positional play. Basically you become a complete chess player.
Nov 18, 2018
0
#12
1300 rating point.
You are welcome...
But seriously, a 700 barely knows how to move the pieces.
Nov 18, 2018
0
#13
In a decent tournament a 1000+ player will not often hang a piece. And many under 1000 know basic opening and some opening traps. I know of an example were a 1000+ OTB tournament player beat a 2000+ master in a tournament. I still cannot believe it but it's in the USCF books. I also happened to play that 1000+ player and draw with him in a different tournament through perpetual check. He definitely was good and he out calculated me but I got lucky and saw a perpetual check or I would have lost. Glad he did not see it.
Nov 18, 2018
0
#14
A 700 rated player on chess.com doesn't have the tactical awareness, strategical thinking, or endgame knowledge, or even a 1300 rated player. You don't need a 2000 rated player to beat a 700 rated player 9 times out of 10, you just need an 1100 player or a 1300 player.
I can tell you I know a 700 rated player, and he doesn't like to play me. Why? Because he always loses. There are games where he has a winning move, but he will always miss it, because, he is a 700 rated player. He misses opportunities when they come, and doesn't really create any chances. He may have some idea how to play, but for the most part, or at least a lot of the time, he is just pushing wood.
I know an 1100 rated player. I can't tell you about all 1100 rated players, but this 1100 player likes to try out a lot of different openings, and most of the ones he tries out are modern ones. I know if anyone here read FCO, but in that book, it clearly states that one must learn to play classically before they adopt any modern approach, however, there are people that started playing yesterday that all they want to learn is the KIA and how to play it in all openings as white. I know another chess player that likes the KID, yet another modern approach, and I will just leave it at that. The point that I am trying to make is that generally, it isn't a good idea to play a modern opening where you neglect a good pawn center, and smart people that wrote FCO, claim, that it is a "bad idea." People that are 700 rating, generally follow bad ideas like this. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to ever play modernly if you are below a certain rating. I mean if we can't play for fun then why play? What I am saying, is, if you are serious about playing chess, then you should learn how to play classically first, before adopting a modern approach, as it is said in FCO.
So what's my point? My point is, people that do this are generally lower rated people that can't get any better and can't figure out why. The solution? Develop a classical opening repertoire. Do beginners need opening repertoires? Not exactly. But if you are serious you will need one early on to learn to stop playing just any random opening. I know it's possible to get really good without knowing any kind of openings, however, those people are very rare, and not everyone can do it.
Let's talk about people my rating for example. I for one hang pieces sometimes. Sometimes I see a continuation but fail to as always look at what my opponent can do, even though it is very easy to see. Occasionally people will play into the Shesnikov, and 19 times out of 20, I will lose in that opening, because I have no idea how to play it. Why do I want to play that opening? Because I'm told it's a good sideline to learn and once you get good at it you will have some good games. I am not there yet 
, and I see it is very easy for white to play and very hard for black to play those lines, in my opinion, if black doesn't know what the hell he is doing. I also don't know much about the Alekhine defense, and I just lost to it playing into an opening trap. A new one!! My play is riddled with passive moves and bad blunders. Passive moves and bad blunders happen when you have no idea what to do, or miscalculate, or just misread the position. If I were to guess why 2000 rated players are so much better than 1300 rated players like me, I would say it is simply because they do these things a lot less often, though they still do them. I'd also imagine 2000 rated players know a lot more about the endgame than I, and about strategy, and are a lot better at spotting tactics. I'm told that the thing I need to work on the most is my tactical vision.
I don't even know why this question was asked. Perhaps it's a troll attempt. Perhaps not. I just told you the difference between a 700 rated player and an even 1100 rated player. 700 rated players have no idea about the endgame. In the endgame, they could throw away a winning game simply by just pushing wood not knowing what to do. They also aren't as good as spotting tactics, etc.
Dan Heisman calls these things the big 5
King Safety
Piece Activity
General Chess Principles
Time Management
Thought Process
These are the things chess players need to get good at first, before anything else. People that are 2000, are a lot better at these things, than a 700 rated player. It was fun to listen to the stuff Preggo said about this topic in another one of his old accounts. However, I will say this, why would anyone ask this question? Trolling? I think so. But oh well, keep asking these questions guys. I will post a new topic, Can as 500 rated player beat a 2800 rated player?
I would like to compare those rating vs playing musics.
When I started playing guitars, I had no idea how those chords and rhythms were working. I had to memorize blindly, meanwhile, my friend who was an enthusiast guitarist could play the chords by his own.
Same story. After several years of doing the same thing , people can do some specific tasks better and better.
2000 are still like frequent hit and miss but they understand chess to a certain extent.
Nov 18, 2018
0
#16
There are numerous factors that differentiate a 2000 from a 700. Shoot, there is a major difference between a 2000 and an 1800. Case in point - observe below!
You see that an 1868 player got completely outplayed by a 2057 player. Just imagine if Black were 700. He wouldn't be getting pieces trapped like the Bishop and the Rook (both on b4, ironically), he'd be hanging them instead!
