Difference between 1400 and 1600 rated players.

I didn't quote absolutes, I merely pitched statistics => saying 2000+ USCF players look at all the Checks/Captures/Threats and make sure they can deal with them before making their move 95-100% of the time. That means, in two 50-move games, the expert+ player will slip just 0-5 times.  Notice I'm talking "missing a SINGLE MOVE check, a threat or a capture" until the opponent plays it. 

Do you realize how "big of a deal" that is at a near-master level of chess?

Do you mean to say "most" 2000+ USCF players will screw up something this big WORSE THAN 2.5 times for every 50 moves? I don't think this 2100 friend of yours is doing a good job representing the entire chess playing fraternity of expert players... I now know atleast 7 (and counting) 2000+ players who swear that they don't miss a "CCT" safety-check on more than one move per game if at all they miss it ... and even if they do, they feel pretty darn embarrassed about that.

Let's have the big guns weigh in. Is this very basic, very rudimentary "good habit" that hard to incorporate into one's thought process, especially when one enters the top 0.1% percentile of all chess players in the world?

I initially started the thread discussing chess.com ratings.  I never have a chance to play OTB due to no one in my family playing and the only chess club i know of here locally meets on a night that i just cant make due to coaching my son in various sports pending on time of year.  We are still doing baseball now and should wrap it up within two weeks but on July 20th we start football.  Then after that its basketball and back to baseball.

 I've played a few 1800s, and for me they seem to be really hard.

They do not make any kind of stupid mistakes, and losing a piece in the middle game usually starts rolling the credits for the show.

An example below (game not analyzed except my mistake, score values from Fruit):

UMMM,,BUT MY tt RATING IS 1900-2300 AT THE MOMENT,but MY CORRONSPONDE RATING IS FLOATING IN THE 1400-1700s i'm stuck like this for several months,how to improve?

Of course when you know the tactic is there it's a lot easier to find. Don't use any kind of TT rating as a true definition of your tactical strength..

How often so you look for CTTs? In my opinion when all someone's thinking for a move is "this looks good" (that was I think mostly what I was doing when I was your level), that isn't to do with ability just laziness. It's likely you won't that often actually find all of your opponent's CTTs but the important thing is there's nothing (apart from the clock) stopping you from looking each and every move..

I suspect at 1400-1700 if you spot (and actually look) more than your opponents you will usually win..

I don't think you can easily say, this is what a 1400 does and this is what a 1600 does.  Every player has a different combination of strengths and weaknesses in their game.  Although, in general, the single largest determinant of your playing strength at the class level has to be your grasp of tactics and your ability to avoid making devastating mistakes that are dropping material and allowing mates to occur.  

You should not be able to win after losing a piece, nor lose after winning a piece. This is a rule.

lol. and if you make those mistakes, you're rated lower.

I know lots of this 1400 1600 skills, even if I'm not great at implementing them, I understand a bit and do lots of tactics, but at last I'm only rated 1250. Here. :D

It isn't like I make a material blunder.. often. It's that my opponent makes a strange move that is strategically bad, usually not tactically, and I'm unsure on how to punish them so they get an advantage when I should have one. Oh well....

the 1400 is bad the 1600 is a little less bad.

i agree

ive played a few 1800s and what seems to set them apart from 1600s is that they don't make moves which turn out to not make sense later on. they do tend to be more organized in their approach.

now, can someone explain the difference between a 1800 and a 2000? :p

Each 200 points is just a little bit better.  Nothing amazing.  Sees a few more tactics, knows the plans a little bit better, visualization, endgames, openings etc.

Maybe the only time this isn't true is for players under 1600... I'm referring to Dan Heisman's "hope chess."  Perhaps at those levels you could add mental discipline to play safe moves.

well, just to keep this interesting, what exactly is the difference between and IM and a GM?

About 200 rating points.

Edit: Darn, your first sentence addressed that. You knew that one was coming.

it depends on the IM and GM i would think

I meant in the way they approach the game.

It also never stops fascinating me to watch houdini play rybka or stockfish.

Its also funny when you see GM do sloppy analysis miss thinks and stuff and you have IMs that to really accurate analysis and you never find a flaw no mater how hard you look.

I mean not ingame necessarily but it still a bit strange in my opinion.

to be honest i dont believe there is a big difference. not that i have ever been 1600 or i even have 1400 in otb