How is a 2000 different from a 1200?

I've always known that for some reason, a player rated 1200 is easy meant for a 2000. But why is this? I mean, in chess, there are only a certain number of moves you can do, Yet for some reason, the 2000 will nearly always win. Is this becuse the 2000 player is able to see tactics better? Or is it because they blunder less? WHY, or maybe HOW does a 2000 think differently from a 1200?

Are you joking? It's like comparing Fredo Corleon to Don Vito. You must learn to respect.

the difference is the 2000 player has started to apply most of the knowledge they have learnt about chess in every game they play

In fact, the problem is that people think their thinking is so different. One has won more games than the other, period.

chalk and cheese....

one is at best not much better than a beginner.....and the other is a reasonable club player....

No, he has won against far better players then the 1200 rated player

A 2000 is a whole lot better than a reasonable club player

How about an official title RCP = Reasonable Club Player?

hi,you can have 2000 and play the same level like1200 its just some numbers the diferece of 800 points u can have with the help of computer or a other chessplayer who is playing for your acount.dont take serious this numbers ,bye

A 2000 is different from a 1200 becouse is cheating more ,the more u cheat the more points u have,bye

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

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Sure is....but how the heck would you cheat in the Millionair series

Quite irrelevant. A player's rating is not a good way to judge chess skill. The stability of the rating, is.

Let's rephrase the question: How is a player of 2000 STRENGTH better than a player of 1200 STRENGTH?

My Answer: I don't know cause I'm not either. I'm 1600

Sorry, I mean 1600 STRENGTH

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.

Maybe another way of looking at this question is what made 2000 Carlson better then 1200 Carlson?  Both obviously share equal natural talent but what changed?  And how did it change?  

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.