I admit, I wouldn't either, but at the same time I think it is not a very good style, because the truth of a given statement should not be exclusively measured by the "rank" of the person who makes it.
It's all about perspective. A 2800 looks upon those rated a thousand points below us probably like an 1800 looks upon the 800's. Just beginning
Since strength in chess is entirely relative, you should most definitely evaluate statements about being "strong" from, e.g., Magnus Carlsen differently.
Which is to say, you should ignore them entirely.
In his relative world, there are about half a dozen "particularly strong" players alive.
Most of whom, from what I've been able to read from them, are almost completely incapable of making their thoughts understandable to anyone but themselves.
All of which is to say, you'd be far better off with a good "how to" guide or lecture from an A player who had spent some part of his life learning to actually communicate with other human beings, than you would attempting to learn anything from Magnus Carlsen, who in English anyway, is borderline incomprehensible.
One difficulty is that no one every really masters anything in chess 
So it would be absurd to say _____ range of players knows _____ insomuch that it suggests they're done learning about _____
Maybe the only general thing you could say is that stronger players tend to be familiar with more patterns than weaker players... and maybe have more experience applying them in real game situations or something.
I admit, I wouldn't either, but at the same time I think it is not a very good style, because the truth of a given statement should not be exclusively measured by the "rank" of the person who makes it.
Unfortunately there's no mathematical formula to test for the truth of a statement, so we have to trust a person's skill and experience, as we do with anything in life.
But I don't think anyone judges the value of advice exclusively on the rating, we judge it against our own experience and knowledge. If someone says something I think is a bit off, but they're rated 2600, it's only logical that I give them some leeway, and try to understand why I might be wrong or if I misinterpreted what they're saying.
If by my own judgement someone is wrong, and they're unrated or rated very low, then there's no reason to give them allowances.
Focus on tactics and basic middlegame plans until about 1300-1400 ELO.
If you find yourself falling for opening traps or outright losing in the openings, look up whatever opening you like and learn a little about the ideas behind it and how to avoid blunders. I emphasis little because if you start diving deep into opening theory you will hold your chess development back and mostly waste your time.
After 1500 ELO or so, things becomes a little more complex. You should definitely learn your basic endgames (K+P vs K, K+R vs K, converting a passed pawn into a win, etc.) You might want to specialize on a few openings here so the patterns start to become familiar to you, tactics and strategy are still your main priority though. You will need to start understanding piece strength here (good vs bad bishops, taking advantage of pawn holes, keeping pieces on the board when you have a space advantage and trading when you are cramped, etc.)
This video is brilliant, watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmJcUI_wSy8
So if my opponent blunders a piece I should leave it alone ?
Nice vid, thanks.
This has been decided by a court of law. chess is a game of skill not luck (ie gambling) check and mate...
http://walkerd.people.cofc.edu/360/AcademicArticles/KellyPokerSkill.pdf
worst forum topic yet
@RoffleMyWafflez
Nice video, agreed and thanks, the accent however, made it hard to concentrate
This has been decided by a court of law. chess is a game of skill not luck (ie gambling) check and mate...
http://walkerd.people.cofc.edu/360/AcademicArticles/KellyPokerSkill.pdf
Oh please. What a crock.
One difficulty is that no one every really masters anything in chess
Yeah, it's definitely a misnomer. I mean, I can accept Expert since that is relative...but Master is awfully domineering (or something).
It's all about perspective. A 2800 looks upon those rated a thousand points below us probably like an 1800 looks upon the 800's. Just beginning
I can't remember who it was, but someone once said that if an American says he doesn't play chess it means he doesn't know the rules, but if a Russian says he doesn't play chess it means he is 1600 
Cute.
One difficulty is that no one every really masters anything in chess
Yeah, it's definitely a misnomer. I mean, I can accept Expert since that is relative...but Master is awfully domineering (or something).
insomuch that it suggests they're done learning about _____
I can't remember who it was, but someone once said that if an American says he doesn't play chess it means he doesn't know the rules, but if a Russian says he doesn't play chess it means he is 1600
Here is the late Ken Smiths plan:
http://chesspowa.blogspot.com/2009/04/ken-smiths-chess-improvement-course.html
Ken is the Smith in the Smith-Morra Gambit and was a world class poker player with a 3rd and 4th place finish in the World Series of Poker in the 1980s
Just don't ask Doyle Brunson if Ken Smith was a world class poker player...
Why would I ask Doyle Brunson? He thought Sailor Roberts was world class.
I admit, I wouldn't either, but at the same time I think it is not a very good style, because the truth of a given statement should not be exclusively measured by the "rank" of the person who makes it.