Difference between 1600, 1800, and 2000 ratings

Quwu wrote:

A 2000 player could beat a 1600 with minor piece odds consistently and a 2000 player could beat an 1800 player with 2 pawn odds consistently.   an 1800 player could beat a 1600 player with 2 pawn odds consistently.  

How do you know these things? I would not feel comfortable being two pawns down against players two hundred points beneath me...the reason I beat them is that that doesn't happen very often to me tongue.png


For 1600s mostly dont know what they are doing for the most part of the game, they do not understand endgames very well, but some are more advanced than others. 1800s dont make plans, and are bad at endgames, but still drop pieces and tactics when distracted. Honestly, 2000s drop their pieces and a lot of the time dont even know what they are doing, just like 1600s and 1800s. Actually only a small amount of 2000s actually outplan their opponents and play like masters, while most others wait for mistakes and try to find the best move for every move, but in the process blundering tactics as well. In my conclusion that most likely serious plannings will begin at the 2200 level, espacially titled players, everything else below 2200 just dont really know chess very deeply, they have really no difference except maybe less blunders and further vision.


Even after reaching the 2000 level, i still have tons of questions i need people to answer about chess. Espacially midgame and endgames, which i do not have a great understanding in. Espacially i find knights and rooks annoying, often sometimes when i get really passive i dont know how to make a plan and improve. ALso espacially everytime playing as black, i find my lightsquared bishop super passive in the semi-slav, which is something i am trying to imrpove. By asking these questions, you can see that some 2000s have no difference from 1600s, honestly i admit i have no idea wth i am doing for most of my chess games, espacially endgames.


It's not like a 1600 will have much worse endgame skills compare to an 1800, they will be worse, but not by much. An 1800 will have slightly better theory knowledge, endgame skills, tactical vision, etc. They will likely just be slightly better in everything.

Although there is one key difference that I have noticed. The lower elo's always will always play the more "obvious" move. Let's say their opponent just took their pawn. The 1600 will immediately take back without hesitation. An 1800 or a 2000 will look a bit deeper. Perhaps look for a zwischenzug, or maybe even to gambit the pawn.

Let's say you're considering sacrificing a piece for an attack on the king. The 1600 will calculate, but they will get scared if they run out of checks for a move or two, and will likely dismiss the idea. The 1800/2000 will actually look deeper and see if it's actually an issue. The 1800/2000 will see that the king is incredibly weak, and there isn't really a way for it to escape the attack. They're also much more intuitional.