Is there a universe of difference between a 600 and an 800 player and can you evaluate?

Sort:
daxypoo
#16 red girlz makes an important point

when you improve at... pretty much anything it is not necessarily that one is improving his “best game” but, rather, improving the “weakest/worst game”

bringing your lowest more in line with your best and your best will slowly improve, as a by product almost, with constant work on out weakest areas

consistency as #16 mentions

——

i looked real quick at a recent game vs an 800

1.e4 and next two moves were pawn moves- none of which protected e4 itself, you made an early g3 (to fianchetto apparently) get out knight and kingside castle?; you did fianchetto but very next move hung your bishop (there was no xray pin here) luckily you opponent missed

this is common even into 1000’s moving on autopilot

your first move is e4- establishing a strong center- build on that; make moves which reinforce your center have your pieces protect your central pawns until you can maybe get more pawns to support each other as a simple plan

and make sure you move your pieces safely; be hesitant to make early moves into opponents territory;

your posts are coherent so you obviously are aware enough to improve through these early brackets


take ownership of your moves and your games; you do not want to make a move where you go back and review and when you ask yourself “why did i move there?” and then not have an answer- or, better put, really find out the why as to why you “didnt know why you moved there”

kingplaya4

Despite playing poorly today, finally got to 800. To answer my own question, there is a big difference as far as an 800 player will almost always beat a 600 player, on the other hand, it does not take much improvement to move up those 200 points. Just watching some videos on developing my minor pieces and watching out for bishops and such when moving my queen and being more careful in general was pretty much enough. Of course I still play very poorly and still blunder pieces without compensation. Oh and I'm more careful with pawns. I still lose them needlessly, but I realize how important losing just one is and I get upset with myself when I lose one that my opponent was clearly targetting and I missed. 

One thing I notice which doesn't improve all that much between the levels is players failing to go for mate when my defense is weak. They'll take out a minor piece on the other side of the board instead of a combination attack on my king which I would have no idea of how to prevent.

By the by, this is all chess.com ratings, I suspect I'd actually be 700 or something irl. Too many players resign needlessly. I'm not talking about when I'm up a queen plus another piece, but I take their knight or something and they just quit or they just quit randomly, maybe something came up at the house or whatever.

JayeshSinhaChess

Yes, there. 200 points is nothing to joke about.

 

To a 1500 there wont be. As to him both will seem like easy wins. However the 800 will crush someone lower than him by 200 points.

 

kingplaya4

Most will need some study though, although people with a high chess IQ probably would not need to. Obviously I'm not future Grandmaster material since I did need to put in some work to make the jump. So the next goal will be 1000 which I am expecting to reach sometime next year (hopefully early in the year) rather than the month or so the previous 200 took. 

slobodan007

Look. I am around 1750-1800. When playing arenas, I see 1200-1300 players have a lot of stratengh there. I lost several times to them.

XelNaga89

Main thing you can do to improve is to do tactic exercises. Websites like this one (and some others I'm not sure I'm allowed to mention) are providing with 5 free ones per day with puzzle difficulty customized to individual player strength. 
Also, play games with slow tempo, ideally over the board.
Good luck!

kingplaya4

Here's a game I just finished against a 1400s player who challenged me. I never really had a chance. In theory I could have taken longer but I played it more rapid style as did my opponent as I have to sleep soon. While I missed a move or two that I might have caught at times, I think its pretty reflective of my skill level now. https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/daily/237309392?tab=report

kingplaya4

Thanks for the earlier comments, I have been watching John's videos, more helpful than Finegold's although not as entertaining. Any free chessbooks available online pdf etc you'd recommend? I think my preferred style would be a counterattacking one.

AJtheBlueJay

I don't know about you, but I've been noticing an uptick in 500-700 players playing like 1000+ players. I used to regularly smash 800-900 players elsewhere (not saying where because im not gonna accidentally advertise another site) but since coming back to Chess.com there's been a bunch of 500-700 players I've faced that have absolutely demolished me. With that in mind, I'd say that either most players at all ratings here are getting markedly better, or the rating system here is quite different from other places. So you may be good against 700+ elsewhere, but end up getting demolished by 500+ here. I'd suggest working on theory and your endgames, or following the lesson plans that chess.com suggest after you do a game review.

knuckey

When I was 500 I was wondering the same thing. I was losing regularly to people below 550. I was thinking I'll never get to 800. A month later I'm breaking to 750. I played 92 games in the past week and I've risen 200pts. There is honestly not much difference between 600s and 800s, but if your rating is 100 pts higher than someone else, you will probably consistently beat them. 750s are a struggle for me right now, but most matches against below 700s will be wins. The difference between 500 and 700 is by my limited experience, maybe 40 hours of play. It's sizeable but nothing crazy.