characteristic of 2000-2500 blitz and rapid - Chess Forums

PMC0111

Jan 19, 2021

0

#1

what are the different characteristic of 2000-2500 rapid and blitz and the percentage of beating -100 rated player

llama47

Jan 19, 2021

0

#2

For all ratings the likelihood of beating* a player rated 100 points lower is 66% or 2/3rds.

In other words if the higher rated player wins 2 games and loses 1, then their rating will end up back where it started because the rating system expected them to score ~66% and they did. This is for 1100 vs 1000 or 3100 vs 3000.

200 points is roughly 3 out of 4.

400 points is roughly 9 out of 10.

*The rating system doesn't distinguish between a player scoring 2 draws and a player scoring 1 win and one loss, so two draws and a win out of 3 games is also 66% and the rating would stay the same.

llama47

Jan 19, 2021

0

#3

And by the way, the percentages below are taken from Elo, but whenever I've checked people's rating out of curiosity it's amazingly accurate.

For example you're rated 1320 in rapid as I'm typing this. So I might filter your games by rating and discover that in 100 games against players rated 1200-1300 you scored a performance rating of 1290 and in 100 games against players rated 1300-1400 you scored a performance rating of 1350. And what's the average of 1290 and 1350? 1320.

And then I could do the same for rating ranges like 1100-1200 and it'd be the same. Every time I've done this it's surprisingly accurate.

-

llama47

Jan 19, 2021

0

#4

Anyway, as for characteristics of ratings... there's more than one way to get to a rating. It's not like all 2000s have one set of knowledge and skills, and 2200s have their set, all 2500s etc.

Even though it's a bit of a non-answer, in general the people rated 1 or 2 hundred points higher than me, for example, don't do any 1 thing better. They'll generally be a little bit better than me at everything, and over the course of a whole game it just adds up. This means more often than not they'll know the opening a little better, they'll calculate a little better, they'll spot a small tactic I don't, be a little more accurate in the endgame. Stuff like that.

RespektMyAuthoritah

Mar 16, 2023

0

#5

Dynamic_Beast wrote:

llama47 wrote:

Anyway, as for characteristics of ratings... there's more than one way to get to a rating. It's not like all 2000s have one set of knowledge and skills, and 2200s have their set, all 2500s etc.

Even though it's a bit of a non-answer, in general the people rated 1 or 2 hundred points higher than me, for example, don't do any 1 thing better. They'll generally be a little bit better than me at everything, and over the course of a whole game it just adds up. This means more often than not they'll know the opening a little better, they'll calculate a little better, they'll spot a small tactic I don't, be a little more accurate in the endgame. Stuff like that.

This sums it up quite well when it comes to higher rated players and in my experience this holds true for the 2300 players I have played against when I was 2100 and 2200.

In answer to the OP`s question and as for the lower rated players I have noticed the following and by no means I claim this to be necessarily true objectively it is just what my experience shows

2000 - Decent but incomplete opening knowledge. Knowledge of most mating patterns, tactical motifs but somewhat lacking when it comes to decoy and diversion- often misses to trap opponent`s pieces and have own pieces trapped as they don`t think in terms of decoy and diversion Biggest weakness - unwilling to think in terms of dynamic chess, unwilling to or and unable to handle complications due to being afraid of miscalculating and constantly playing it safe, plays mainly with static concepts in mind (open files,color complexes etc) and has difficulty changing plans when needed and kind of fall apart when the one plan they had in mind and focused their efforts towards has stopped being viable.

2100 - Solid opening knowledge loses rarely straight out of the opening much stronger tactically than the 2000 and generally better in decoy and diversion. Decent dynamic chess understanding and good sense for dynamics. Biggest weakness fails to calculate sufficiently and plays on intuition a lot - a recipe for disaster when playing dynamically which at the 2100 is often needed due our opponent steering things in dynamic waters.

2200 - Extremely solid opening knowledge especially as black - Alekhine , Schlieman, Sveshnikov players a nasty un-beatble bunch which almost made me quit chess. Able to set up tactics as opposed to just spotting them. Biggest weakness- overplaying, trying to desperately reach 2300 playing while tired and missing obscure tactics and not calculating sufficiently deep when they need to (however much less than the 2100 player) On a good day a solid 2200 player can beat almost anyone in the world.

2300 - Sufficiently better in all of the above especially calculation- do not count on them missing a tactic - it does happen but hoping for it is a bad idea. Biggest weakness - unable to sit and do nothing, goes on tilt when a lower rated player starts repeating moves and tries to win at all cost. Weakens their position or loses on time while trying to break you at all cost.

I cannot speak for 2400 and above.

Old thread I know. Anyways your description of 2000s sounds pretty spot on to me. Do you have any tips on how to work on dynamic chess?