Rating is related to the personality of the player . Cautiousness make you win?

The more rated you are, the most cautious you are. 

And its true.

Good players are often meticulous, detail-oriented while low-rated players are more into 'the big image'.

Its all about psychology

That is why some players just cannot become better.

No!  Being "cautious" leads to passive play, which is why 1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,h6? is a bad move.  "Cautious" in another sense however is obligatory: always analyse your checks, captures, and threats, and if none are viable then look for a quiet move that improves your position.  In one of the positions in Heisman's Improving Chess Thinker an expert played Qf7? when ...Qd8 wins as the queen is left in an awkward spot and needs to move.  Still, white is better in the position until white either allows ...d5 hitting the queen and bishop or Qf7, what black can defend against.  The idea was 1.Qf7,Rxf7 2.Re8+,Rf8 3.Rxf8#

The point I'm trying to make is even experts sometimes aren't cautious enough (in the right way of course.) and don't check all the opponent's potential defenses, even if the defenses outright win.

I'd post the position but won't out of respect for Heisman. 

Ratings are hardly related to a person's personality because a person's personality is much more than just being meticulous and detail-oriented.

A higher rating also doesn't mean a person is more cautious. If a person has a good plan, that person has seen many of the pitfalls in the line that was analyzed. It wasn't because of caution, but of better planning (and calculations.)

the word is calculation, which means precise movements nad anticipation. If the player isnt cautious, he will lose pieces. Define how you give the word a meaning.

Based upon, Tal's videos, he is cautious but agressive (attacking). Fischer was less cautious then him 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihJPMevm9HM&feature=pyv&ad=5513445026&kw=chess

if you watch games that I personnaly play, as a beginner, you will see difference

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=543971988

Losing a queen rather than a pawn is a huge difference. 

About the personality, its part of it. Just think as if you were born with those traits. Just as if you can not change your character, the rating is hard to change. That why there are good players and bad players, the amount of each same. Balance is an important factor here.

Yeah well sometimes that is true

good players a detailed orientated because they know all the techniques, its hard to be detailed oriented when you have a gap in your knowledge...

just because you can play a game and even win, doesnt mean that in the game were like 1000 different techniques you still have to learn. Its easy once you know all the steps ( i mean its easy to care more for details not to play like strong player.)

But on the other hand not being detailed oriented and go all out is probably the only chance a weak player like me has, just in the hope that my opponent blunders.

BWL

It's totally unrelated.

Are you kidding Fischer was less cautious then Tal???

Just look at the game Fischer won against him, where Tal said afterwars playing against Fischer is like fighting Einsteins theory.

nothing to do with phychology.

it's just that beginners and sometimes intermediate players go in silly attacks, while good players know that chess requires a lot of positional maneuvering even for attacking purposes. Chess is a game of patience.

Tal and Shirov? They are nowhere near as aggressive as a random 1200 on chess.com !

That was only one game I watched. Based upon that game, it shows what I meant. But I must insist that Tal and Fischer are both great players, as their levels are very, very high.  That was just a game to show an example of what I meant. 

I agree that Fischer is a talented, skilled player. Even thought Fischer is slightly advantaged because of his genius, their level of calculation are quite the same level.

funny that you mention full tilt, i have the weird feeling it perfectly applies to poker as well.

But on a serious not its not only calculation, you can just calculate if you dont know what to calculate for. Masters know what pawn structures are good, what piece placement is benefitials. They know what inbalances they can use to convert the game to a win or draw a losing position.

positional knowledge and techniqual skills  masters have,  players like me are totally lacking and calculation doesnt help. Its just impossible, we only can play following 1 or 2 grand shemes and hope we succeed despite having huge gaps in our chess knowledge.

Its not that we are silly, we are just not as knowledgable, to know the positional steps that must be taken... at least thats what i belief, maybe with that knowledge i still would play silly i dont know.