How is a 2000 different from a 1200?
Sort:
Let's not forget fear
May 1, 2016
0
#83
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?
romancitoG wrote:
romancitoG wrote: Are you joking? It's like comparing Fredo Corleon to Don Vito. You lol he asks for respect bc he studies chess
Are you joking? It's like comparing Fredo Corleon to Don Vito. You must learn to respect.
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.
May 2, 2016
0
#86
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.
800 elo points.
May 9, 2016
0
#92
Oh no!! The chess.com fabulous troll has visited my best thread....help us!!
800 rating points
and the 2200 player blunder every three moves
Mar 26, 2018
0
#95
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.
A 1200 has not yet watched any John Bartholomew videos. The 2000 clearly has.
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
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. :)