Relationship Between Specific Chess Skills and ELO

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

Oh please.  What a crock.

Yeah, it's definitely a misnomer.  I mean, I can accept Expert since that is relative...but Master is awfully domineering (or something).

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.

insomuch that it suggests they're done learning about _____

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.

lol...everybody's a critic. 

I think that the most important thing to improve at chess is to have good positional understanding. I recently broke 1400 uscf and am nearing 1500, when a few months ago I was a 1200 player. In fact my supplement is still in the 1300 range (it lags by 1-2 months). But I went on to a tactics trainer and actually scored about 50% worse than I had then, so the most obvious reason I improved is a positional understanding. To try to show the difference between me and an 1800 I played, I will use the following drawish game that I lost.

The Ken Smith article is mostly focused on openings and gambits which I assume one shouldn’t spend much time on until reaching an ELO around 1600-1800? The way Smith links a course of reading to ELO was very helpful – that was the kind of approach I was hoping for.

Right now I’m following TonyH’s advice on openings, playing the Scotch as white and as black playing e5 against e4 and the Tarrasch against d4 – I hope that’s a good approach.

Shepi, if I’m understanding your comments correctly they seem inconsistent with what I’ve been told so far.  I’m a complete beginner so most people have been advising a course of tactics, tactics, tactics, and more tactics with slow chess and reading mixed in.  I’m curious, at what ELO would most of you advise that a player start focusing more heavily on positional chess?

Positional chess comes in many shapes and color : "develop your pieces" is kind of positional chess, and so is : "if you spot a weak square in your opponent's territory, try to remove the main defender of this square before installing a Knight on it". Obviously, the first item is more useful to a beginner than the 2nd, but I'd say it's never too early to get acquainted with the basics of positional play. This may come along with building your first opening repertoire (from 1300), when it's good to understand what you're aiming for with your set of chosen openings.

Tactics matter more at an early level, which probably includes me. However, I play at a chess club vs 1800s, and the slightest positional blunder can cause a loss. So you should study tactics until you get reasonably confident that you won't miss easy wins or drop pieces. After that, positional play becomes the main differential between higher rated players. Thus, if you really want to be good you need to know positional ideas, to beat friends who don't play competitively you should learn tactics.