The difference between 2000 and 1200 is 800.
How is a 2000 different from a 1200?
Sort:
thirdculture you are still lower than 1150 so what are you gonna say now idiot
besides that isn't even a drop i hAd much worse times than you...
and don't you dare say obviously!
oliverthinks wrote:
thirdculture you are still lower than 1150 so what are you gonna say now idiot
are you okay
What grade are you in
Some times , but very seldom,the 1200 gets aflying start against a 2000, and pushes hard and gets a winning advantage. The 2000 defends with a fine presicion, and maybe after two hours, in move ca 27 the 1200 makes one passive move, and his advantage gets torn apart. The 2000 wins.
A 2000 is very satisfied when he beats anyone, regardless of rating, when he plays black (at least that goes for my teacher).
Feb 26, 2016
0
#48
gottobeatgary wrote:
Pearls of wisdom 0110001101101000 :) My sincere compliments for such an eloquent contribution.
I second this. There aren't many decently written explanations on chess.com - or anywhere, for that matter - about the relative strengths of chess players. But you nailed it. I enjoyed both of your comments here. Excellent content and great insight.
Feb 26, 2016
0
#49
When the 1200 doesn't blunder, it's all about the understanding of the position which is based on many factors : pawn structure, better minor pieces, how to use initiative or lead of developement, endgame understanding and so on ( the list is not exhaustive). But let's not underestimate the ability of the 2000 to calculate quite long line properly.
To sum up, the 2000 rated player do EVERYTHING BETTER in a chess game ( tactically and strategically speaking) than a 1200 player. And this is the same thing between a 2000 rated player and a world class player.
I hope I answered to your question :).
(sorry if there are a lot of english mistakes)
A 2000 player knows strategy well and that's chess, a 1200 plays offense-defense...Смирнов says sth like that
Feb 26, 2016
0
#51
DrNoob2016 wrote:
When the 1200 doesn't blunder, it's all about the understanding of the position which is based on many factors : pawn structure, better minor pieces, how to use initiative or lead of developement, endgame understanding and so on ( the list is not exhaustive). But let's not underestimate the ability of the 2000 to calculate quite long line properly.
To sum up, the 2000 rated player do EVERYTHING BETTER in a chess game ( tactically and strategically speaking) than a 1200 player. And this is the same thing between a 2000 rated player and a world class player.
I hope I answered to your question :).
(sorry if there are a lot of english mistakes)
Perfect and simple, the thing is, is it possible for a 1200 player to actually become a 2000. Or do you think the highest would be 1600?
ThirdCultureKid wrote:
DrNoob2016 wrote:
When the 1200 doesn't blunder, it's all about the understanding of the position which is based on many factors : pawn structure, better minor pieces, how to use initiative or lead of developement, endgame understanding and so on ( the list is not exhaustive). But let's not underestimate the ability of the 2000 to calculate quite long line properly.
To sum up, the 2000 rated player do EVERYTHING BETTER in a chess game ( tactically and strategically speaking) than a 1200 player. And this is the same thing between a 2000 rated player and a world class player.
I hope I answered to your question :).
(sorry if there are a lot of english mistakes)
Perfect and simple, the thing is, is it possible for a 1200 player to actually become a 2000. Or do you think the highest would be 1600?
I know you asked DrNoob, but I answer anyway.
1200 is a ratinglevel that the 2000players have been stepping at on the ladder up.
I probably was ca 1200 a couple of years ago, and have climbed to 1437. 2000 is almost in sight. I know that I play some sequenses of my better game at that level, and I know that it is a large job to add all the training and knowledge needed.
It is about time and motivation.
If I keep up at this pace, and I dont lose brainpower due to aging, I might hit 2000 when I get ca 60 years old.(guess it wont happen).
If you are a supersmart kid you do it faster. A 12 year old friend of me was maybe 1400 when he was 10, he is Fide 1963 now. He works seriously and also plays football. He takes GM-lessons. He has already played more than 235 otb rated longchessgames
AdamovYuri, your statistics looked strange. Is t something wrong with it.IN what ratingpool did you climb from 1200 to 2100 in five months? Chess.com bullet? Fide longchess?
To improve that fast is close to impossible, faster than the speed of Magnus, but it is possible for a masterplayer that comes in from another chessenvironment at 1200 rating to fast play himself up to 2100.
Feb 27, 2016
0
#54
To be clear to everyone, I don't mean blitz or rapid chess because the skills required to be good at aren't the same. I'm talking about long classical games.
Well, to become a 2000 rated player depends on many things : in my opinion you have to be in a chess club with a strong trainer and play many tournaments and many games ( I mean a lot !!) to get a lot of experience and improve your pattern recognition. There is so much to understand to get from 1200 to 2000 elo fide.
Then it depends on your own ability to understand the game. Some of us will take only few months to get there ( very very gifted though, I only saw one case like that in all my " chess career"), others few years and the majority of chess players will never reach that level in their lifetime. I play chess for many years and my rating is 1800 fide( I suck in blitz though, I need time to think properly). I can't tell for a player I don't know.
So, play many games and analyse them with a strong player to see what you did wrong, open many books(openings, strategy, endgames), play a lot of games and see where it brings you. But the most important thing is to have fun otherwise everything I said is just pointless.
Feb 27, 2016
0
#55
Lol, I still have a lot of work to do. In a game I just made my move in, I took a hammer and beat the foundations till they broke xD
I gave him a Queen in exchange for a pawn....
BettorOffSingle wrote:
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
AdamovYuri, your statistics looked strange. Is t something wrong with it.IN what ratingpool did you climb from 1200 to 2100 in five months? Chess.com bullet? Fide longchess?
To improve that fast is close to impossible, faster than the speed of Magnus, but it is possible for a masterplayer that comes in from another chessenvironment at 1200 rating to fast play himself up to 2100.
Heck, I can go from 1200 to 2100 and back in an hour!
None of these top GMs improved rapidly, but rather showed promise early, got top coaching, and steadily improved while wasting time on a stupid board game.
I made Expert 18 months after I joined USCF, with an initial rating of 1810. After that I had no reason to keep upping the rating, but my strength topped out at around 2250 (back in 1991). Now I'd say it's around 2200-2300, but that's in 2016.
In six years I expect to be rated around 3200 FIDE.
If you can go from 1200 bullet to 2100 and back in an hour, then you are already an experienced chessplayer. A 1200 Fide can not climb that high at once. A 2000 Fide easily can bounce the bulletrating like that.
A 1200 is no win time. 2000 win win all time because 2000 much much strong compare 1200. 2000 more tactic play, 1200 hang piece, inexperience play. 2000 crush 1200 god bad
Mar 1, 2016
0
#59
AdamovYuri wrote:
jengaias wrote:
AdamovYuri wrote:
jengaias wrote:
AdamovYuri wrote:
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
BettorOffSingle wrote:
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
AdamovYuri, your statistics looked strange. Is t something wrong with it.IN what ratingpool did you climb from 1200 to 2100 in five months? Chess.com bullet? Fide longchess?
To improve that fast is close to impossible, faster than the speed of Magnus, but it is possible for a masterplayer that comes in from another chessenvironment at 1200 rating to fast play himself up to 2100.
Heck, I can go from 1200 to 2100 and back in an hour!
None of these top GMs improved rapidly, but rather showed promise early, got top coaching, and steadily improved while wasting time on a stupid board game.
I made Expert 18 months after I joined USCF, with an initial rating of 1810. After that I had no reason to keep upping the rating, but my strength topped out at around 2250 (back in 1991). Now I'd say it's around 2200-2300, but that's in 2016.
In six years I expect to be rated around 3200 FIDE.
If you can go from 1200 bullet to 2100 and back in an hour, then you are already an experienced chessplayer. A 1200 Fide can not climb that high at once. A 2000 Fide easily can bounce the bulletrating like that.
you are right. thats because i am very smart and also i played chess almost everyday in high school during the pe, english and german classes. i think i have higher IQ than Carlsen and i have really good education so it is normal to improve so fast. i just didnt spend all my life playing chesslike them
I never claimed that Carlsen has high IQ , but just out of curiocity , how do you know his IQ and you are sure you have higher than him?Of course I don't doubt that you might have higher IQ than Carlsen but a really clever guy would never say something that is impossible to prove.In case you don't know, clever is not one that claims he is clever but one that can avoid saying(or doing) stupid things , and you obviously can't.
i am really smart, well educated and i do extremely well at any activity i take up. also i speak russian and czech and i only started learning english a few months back. also i am studying finance and took all exams with excellent results and only failed algebra but thats because i didnt prepate for it. i think this is already a lot more than 99.99% of the chess players have ever achieved _)))
You are from these guys that are good in many but perfect in none.Jack of all trades we call them.It is unclear if they are more clever than someone that excels in one field.It is possible that you have somekind of photographic memory that allows you to learn fast but doesn't mean you are more intelligent.You assume that just because it suits you but reaching to conclusions that are convenient ignoring the facts certainly shows lack of intelligence.
Also lack of intelligence shows that you try to find excuses for your failures.Succeeding in the exams was the result of high IQ but failure in Algebra was the result of not good preparation?You probably don't know that smart guys don't seek excuses for their failures.
I believe you are indeed smart(and I might be wrong) , the problem is that for a smart guy you do a lot of stupid things(and that is why I said that I might be wrong).Playing bullet chess is stupid(why a guy that believes that he has high intelligence doesn't want to play long time games which will give him the chance to think and prove his abilities?) , comparing yourself with Carlsen(or others) is stupid , not preparing for your Algebra exams was stupid , trying to find excuses for your failure is stupid.The most stupid of all is you don't even see these as stupid.
For a smart guy , so many stupid acts/decisions is a little controvertial , don't you think?
lool of course that if you excell in so many things you are more intelligent than somebody who has, for instances, only learned to move wooden pieces and hardly can express any thought in any human language )))) you fail here!!
let's move on. seeiking and finding excuses is a sure sign of high intelligence because stupid people cannot analyze the situations and understand what went wrong therefore they dont seek excuses. you fail again. ))
let's move on. you wrongly believe that what you think is wrong is actually wrong. thats a sign of low intelligence. smart people know that wrong and right are not absolute categories. lol fail!
How do you expect me to agree with you when you always fail, fail, fail. :(
When I posted this thread, I didn't expect such extreme debate xD
many many factors;)