Forums

How is a 2000 different from a 1200?

Sort:
BlunderLots

It's a matter of learned knowledge, primarily.

The 2000 player has gained more knowledge (positionally and tactically) than the 1200 player, that's all.

If the 1200 player were to be taught all the things that the 2000 knows, the 1200 would be 2000+, too. :)

stevethedrummer
Let's not forget fear
TyrantTick
siyah-beyaz-bjk wrote:

hi, 2000 rated player think more for a move, 1200 rated player think less, this is my opinion.

But I sometimes spend up to 10 minutes thinking on what to do in a correspondance game. Yet my rating is only 1100 (my 970 ratings is cause I accidently joined speed tourneys I set up) I doubt GMs think more than 10 minutes in a live tourney, so would this statement be accurate?

thekingfondlers

romancitoG wrote:

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

romancitoG wrote: Are you joking? It's like comparing Fredo Corleon to Don Vito. You lol he asks for respect bc he studies chess

DjonniDerevnja
ThirdCultureKid wrote:
siyah-beyaz-bjk wrote:

hi, 2000 rated player think more for a move, 1200 rated player think less, this is my opinion.

But I sometimes spend up to 10 minutes thinking on what to do in a correspondance game. Yet my rating is only 1100 (my 970 ratings is cause I accidently joined speed tourneys I set up) I doubt GMs think more than 10 minutes in a live tourney, so would this statement be accurate?

The 2000 is more experienced, so he can find in a few seconds what 1200 needs many minutes to search for.

1200-kids often plays way too fast, and when they start trowing in a lot of time, they do skyrocket on the ratingscale. I did beat a boy like that in our clubchampionship and he had 1hour 26 minutes left on the clock after 50 moves in a 90min 30sec game. If he had spent more time, like one minute extra in twenty of the moves, the game would have been a close race.

KevinTheSnipe

they analyse to about the same depth. higher rated just sees better moves, and the lower rated won't see or consider them. so that's why the 1200 doesn't generally stand a chance. google for the de groot study for more info.

andyquibler

800 elo points.

DoctorStrange

2000 CAN crush 1200

1200 CANNOT crush 2000 

That's the difference!

TyrantTick

LOL XD

solskytz

<Binary> fantastic post, number 20 in page 1. 

Robert_New_Alekhine

Oh Good God,  not another thread like this...

TyrantTick

Oh no!! The chess.com fabulous troll has visited my best thread....help us!!

Speedybulletchess

800 rating points

Speedybulletchess

and the 2200 player blunder every three moves

Smositional
KID_Harish wrote:

2000 CAN crush 1200

1200 CANNOT crush 2000 

That's the difference!

That's absolutely wrong! 1200 can crush 2000 if he's an improving player. If the 1200 player stayed at 1200 for years then he it's more likely that he will lose.

AntonioEsfandiari

A 1200 has not yet watched any John Bartholomew videos.  The 2000 clearly has.

Smositional

Totally agree.

santiagomagno15

I played against  John Bartholomew in one of his videos, I was 1300  and manage to do some interesting stuff against him, what happen is that a 1200 player doesnt have all the knowledge at openings, middlegames, tactics, endgames and strategy, so most of his moves are going to be better than the 1200 and little by little is going to be wining the game

drmrboss
AntonioEsfandiari wrote:

A 1200 has not yet watched any John Bartholomew videos.  The 2000 clearly has.

You are watching his videos, did you already achieved 2000 in this site?