2000 play better, chess, less blunders, more position nad/or faster.
How is a 2000 different from a 1200?
Sort:
great and accurate explanation 0110
great and accurate explanation 0110
Zeetex-Jr wrote:
@AdamovYuri: Tactics follow you everywhere, from World Champion to beginner, tactics are always important.
The main difference between 1200 & 2000 is that 99% of the time a 2000 rated player will beat a 1200 rated player. If you want to go more in depth, a 1200 rated player will usually play the most popular openings, like openings based off of 1. e4. 2000 rated players normally like to expand their horizons and play openings like the Larsen, Nimzo-Indian, Scandinavian, hungarian attack, kings indian and Queens gambit declined are all very common with 2000 rated players and up. (2000 rated players like to try something new, while 1200 rated players stay with what they know)
Hope it helped!
I think that both 1200´s and 2000´s like to play something new, but of course the 1200 reportoir is vere tiny compared to 2000. Remember that 1200 is very often a beginner which are climbing up the ladder, and if the 1200 is good and percistent enough, he or she will sooner or later step on the 2000 level.
Experience is a lot of the difference, and that comes with age. Magnus Carlsen was a 1200 (for a very short time)(I am not sure if I am presice about his history)at the age of 9, but when he got much older, like 10 years, he was a 2000. Now that he starts go get very old he is a 2850.
I was 1200 (actually unrated-my first fiderating was 1400)at the age of 51, and hope to become a 2000 at the age of 65. I will still be the same person, but hopefully I have buildt a lot more skills and reportoirs. And hopefully I will be as eager as I am now at 1437 to try new things.
A 2000 is on average older than a 1200, and every 2000 is older now, than back in the 1200 days.
Age is the main difference.
How much time took for you to assimilate them?
*cough*
Mar 1, 2016
0
#68
Are you sure pawn structures are all it is? Wouldn't 'cheap' tactics still help you win?
Maybe superintellligent players doesnt need to know any tactics, because they can calculate very fast, deep and accurate?
Mar 1, 2016
0
#71
But wouldn't they be calculating very fast, deep, and accurate tactics?
ThirdCultureKid wrote:
But wouldn't they be calculating very fast, deep, and accurate tactics?
Yes, but because they are geniouses they can calculate it from scratch.
On the other hand, if they know a lot tactical patterns, they can save a lot energy, and avoid blunders because of exhaution.
Yuri probably writes about bullet or blitztactics. Those tactics are much more shallow than the longchesstactics. In longchess and even more in correspondence, there can be played really deep and complicated tactics.
Mar 2, 2016
0
#73
Absolutely! Who cares if your queen gets pinned as long as you have a sweet pawn structure!
AdamovYuri wrote:
if your pawns are well placed and you have no doubled pawns, pawn islands or isolated pawns, then you shouldnt be worried about ANY tactics at all. If everything is well protected no cheap tactics can arise.
tactics can fascinate only beginners. advanced players are not interested in tactics but in pawn structures
AdamovYuri wrote:
if your pawns are well placed and you have no doubled pawns, pawn islands or isolated pawns, then you shouldnt be worried about ANY tactics at all. If everything is well protected no cheap tactics can arise.
tactics can fascinate only beginners. advanced players are not interested in tactics but in pawn structures
About Tactics; if I remember right Aronian was able to hold draw with two or three pawns fewer against Carlsen (maybe in Norway chess 2015?) because he knew "The Vančura Draw" tactics or the Lucena position. Tactics are desicive also among the best in the world.
http://en.chessbase.com/post/karsten-mueller-understanding-the-vancura-draw
Please don't bite, he's well aware of his nonsense.
Candidate35 escreveu:
The better you get the less you blunder, the more you capitalize, and the more you see in general. It's like writing, some are far more capable of manipulating words, phrases, and thoughts in general to produce excellent literature while most of us produce at our best mediocre.
I like the linguistic comparison. How does that not clear things up?
All about cumulative improvement in the language. The more you practice and learn, the more fluent you become. Simple as that.
*sigh*
Basically I was asking how a 2000 PLAYS different from a 1200!!