Observations of chess players - My first 12 months playing tournaments

A little under 12 months ago I started playing tournament chess at my local chess club. 90 mins + 30 sec increment, FIDE rated, typically 7-9 round Swiss. Most tournaments have 1-2 IM's, 2-3 FM's and a host of players ranging in ratings all the way down to children <1000.

While I learned to play as a child, it took until my mid-30's to play my first competitive tournament. Previously I only ever played online and never more than with a 15 minute time control, so classical time controls blew my mind.

So what did I learn?

Community:

* Ratings are perceived as gospel. No one ever beat a higher rated opponent because they played well, it's always because the higher rated player "mixed up opening variations" or "I was meant to play this line" when they didn't.

* Bishop pair is an automatic win in the minds of <2000 players. No if's or but's.

* In post game analysis, EVERY!! player announces "I'm winning" just moments before their position crumbles and insist on analysing from that point on why their position crumbled. Suggestions that their position wasn't sound before it fell apart are dismissed with "bishop pair",  "open file" and other such cliché's.

* 1800 - 2000 rating range is particularly toxic. These are players that are on the cusp of having a respectable rating and in the absence of sufficient talent to improve into the 2000+ range, they resort to unsportsmanlike behaviour. I've seen an IM accused of violating touch-move because he knocked a queen in the process of moving his hand to pick up a bishop. Have seen a middle-aged man trying to bully a 10year old boy into accepting a draw by repetition in a completely lost position, after just 1 repetition. Had an opponent demand I analyse our game, only to ridicule my thought processes and input.

* Post game analysis usually starts off with someone reciting memorised opening lines and a declaration of "and white/black is better". When asked why, the answer rarely has any substance. I.e. I read it in a book, so it must be true. They fail to realise that what a GM perceives as a slight advantage is nonsense to a <2000 player, if only because the following moves are unlikely to be of GM quality so as to exploit the slight advantage.

* Children have so much fun playing chess! When they're winning, they can't hide the excitement. When they lose, they just go and play another game with their friends and laugh. If only us adults could take this much joy out of chess.

Difference in ratings from my experiences:

<1000 mostly shuffle pieces around

1000-1200 Start to understand basic principals (development, castling), but regularly make basic tactical errors.

1200-1500 Tend not to drop pieces, but overlook smaller tactical ideas (doubled up pawns, blocked bishops, etc). Don't understand tempo.

1500-1800 play very principled chess (e.g. try to control open files, place bishops on long diagonals, etc), pawn structures are solid but largely static. Mostly incapable of creating threats short of opponents blundering.

1800-2000 Tactically solid, know how to use pawns, know about controlling key squares. Openings are their biggest strength, so taking them out of book early levels the playing field.

2000+  I have only played 3 opponents in this range. 2 FM's and a 2100. capable of eking small advantages throughout the game until it turns into a big advantage or they enter the end game with a superior position. Understand end games. Don't miss tactical opportunities.

2400+ Played an IM in a 15 min game. He wasn't paying attention, so I was surviving. Then he started paying attention, nek minit, gg.

FWIW, I'm currently FIDE ~1700. While the first 9 months involved a lot of blunders, overly optimistic plays and a 1544 initial rating, I'm now achieving + scores against the 1800-2000 group of players.

Eager to hear of others tournament experiences.

Nice post.

Tournaments are fun. I play swiss and the 5 round tournament (who's name I forget). Most people are nice and I learn something new everytime. At the Texas State Chess Tournament in Arlington TX (which was my 5 tournament?) I felt that I was actually putting my "chess toolbox" to work. At the other tournaments I was just moving pieces and it was really great if I won. This time was different. Can't wait for my next tournament so that I can continue to expand my horizons wether it's chess or something else.

It's really hard to generalize. For me, the rating range as follows (FIDE):

1000-1200: Can play decent principled chess, but they make silly mistakes once under a bit of pressure, or under no pressure even. Generally can't play anything but simple positions properly.

1200-1600: These players still make plenty of mistakes, and they often make at least one tactical blunder in a game, and will certainly blunder if you give them a somewhat complicated position. So playing safely and reasonably actively will let you beat these players most of the time, without trouble.

1600-1800: These players don't make tactical blunders as often as the others, but I don't see particularly great skill in them; they will blunder under pressure, and aren't very good at creating great pressure.

1800-2000: They don't make tactical mistakes nearly as often, and a lot of them can play decently, positionally speaking. Generally tough to beat.

2000+: These guys don't make tactical errors typically unless it's a very complicated position, and a lot of them are quite decent positionally. The only way to beat these players, *in my experience*, is to go into complicated positions, and try to beat them there through tactics, unless you're a  master who can outplay them. Of course, you risk losing as well in these double-edged positions.

Same here. I started playing chess since I was in pre-k... damn... 15 years ago... and I have never really met anyone who is rude. My friends and I do trash talk quite often, but only between us and we would never unsult everyone. I usually try to discuss each game after I play whether I win or lose and I think the 1800-2000 section that I've interacted with to be good people.

its legimate to gripe a bit on our flaws.  but the picture you create is just a little too sweeping.

for example you say "adults" are jerks and take the fun out of chess; while kids just enjoy the game.

well then you have been to enough tournaments yet.  kids can be horrible opponents too.  yes, kids throw tantrums- and sometimes egged on by "helicopter" parents aren't having that much fun.

this is just an example.  Adults can be pleasant, reasonable, instructive,etc.  as with anything you can't make sweeping statements about everyone. (and when you do your inevitably exagerating)

In the rated games I've played or watched in the Mid-Atlantic USA region, with adults and the high school club/team teenagers I coach, the rating numbers and player abilities pretty much match the U.S. Chess Federation ratings - though I haven't played anyone above the 2000's.

I don't know if there's a difference with FIDE rules (U.S. Chess has to slightly differ on some things for some reason), but when I served as a USCF rated-game Tournament Director in scholastic tournaments, I had to have a bookmark in my rulebook about touch-move, Rule 10B, which basically says you do NOT have to move the piece if you brushed over it on the way to another piece, bumped it with your elbow, etc. Of course, when I ruled against it some teenagers would argue and resort to, "My father said that's the rule!"  Hence the bookmark.  American TD's are encouraged in the USCF rulebook to lean against calling it a touch move unless its very deliberate with witnesses.

LOL, well OP from what you write I can come to the conclussion that most tournament players are very dislikeable. 

I have never played in an OTB tournament (Maybe I will do it later this year) so I can't tell from experience. 

The thing I have seen in videos and I really don't like at all is players punching so hard the poor button of the clock.

Why they can't press it calmly?

I think the rating range needs to be further broken by age.  There is a big difference between a 11 year old rated between 1500-1800, and an older adult rated between 1500-1800.  I know an 11 year olf that is going to be VERY GOOD, and very well might make master in a couple years.  He is currenntly rated 1656+ and everytime he loses its always the same reason.  "I forgot my theory" or "I mixed up my theory" Every loss is due to openings.  You cant tell him any different no matter how much you try and show him.  Openings seem to be a pattern with youngins.  

Hard to believe. 

If he gets a slight, or even clear disadvantage out of the opening, it's pretty much inconsequential, since the opponents at that level will just blunder later and throw the advantage away, if he plays decently from then on. So it's definitely not the opening.

I doubt a 1600 of any age (or even a 2000+ player) loses due to opening more than a few percent of lost games.

From experience, I'm saying that 0% of my nearly 100 OTB classical games have been decided due to the opponent not knowing theory, rather it's because the opponent made a mistake due to playing skills. 

 Will definitely keep playing for a long time yet.

When I first signed up to a tournament I expected people to be competitive, but ultimately good humoured. And that is exactly what I find with the majority of players, except in that weird 1800 - 2000 rating range.

And that is why my first observed point was that "ratings are gospel". My opponents see a player that is rated high-1600's and expect an automatic win. When that doesn't happen, it's clearly because they did something wrong and not because I played well.

I also often face risky openings from these higher rated players. If it's not the Alekhine defence then it's  the Scotch, or some other aggressive opening. Again, they see my rating and assume a win is just a formality.

Well, when I was 1600, I just waited for my opponents to blunder, and I didn't do anything special. Then, when I learned how to play a bit more aggressively and challenging, I jumped to 1800+. It's true in my opinion. 

@OP
I can relate to very few of those. I have to wonder if you're being overly negative.

Here where I live everyone is overly agressive. I think the only 1800+ players here actually understand positional concepts. From 1500-1800 It's just all out attack and crumble when faced with someone that can steer the game away from tactics and more into maneuvering.

I'd say players 1800-2200 (myself included) tend to be too dogmatic. Maybe not as much the closer to 2200 they are, but for example playing on the "wrong" side of the board, opening the position when their opponent has the bishop pair, leaving themselves with a "bad" minor piece... these are bad in general of course, but other factors can make up for them. Even so, dogmatic players will dismiss these moves without seriously considering them.

Of course that's also their strength against weaker players. Very few unforced ridiculous positional blunders.

Although I do agree with the OP about the ridiculous worship of the bishop pair. If you're not good enough to use it, don't pretend it matters when you give analysis. In some positions you'd have to be at least a GM to produce the dozens of moves of exact technical play to exploit the bishop pair, otherwise shutup about it lol.

But to be fair, if it's already an endgame with an open board, strong club players should be able to use them to good effect.