I'm not really sure, the differences are to complicated for me. In the game I fully expected 16. 0-0, but the higher rated player played Ke2 and my engine thought it was best when I analyzed it. I think it might be that white doesn't plan to use the e file and black has pawns on the e file so there is no chance of a pin. Also, as show later the king wants to go to d2 or d3 to prevent the rooks from penetrating.
Relationship Between Specific Chess Skills and ELO
Sort:
I'm sure Ke2 is a pretty valid idea, I'm just saying that it has its drawbacks. For example, maybe black can try 16...0-0, put a rook on the e and d files and play for ...e5. That rook opening up on white's Ke2 could be annoying.
In this particular position, I'm not sure which king position is better -- perhaps here the material is just limited enough to beg for the king to come in, but it's a close call.
Dec 3, 2012
0
#84
I've given some thoughts to this question.
This is highly subjective and work in progress, but you're welcome to input comments. I'm sure we can fill in the blanks and refine it together 
Awesome!
hicetnunc, that was an AWESOME reply to my original question. Thank you so much!
esto6805 wrote:
Isiah_Nougat wrote:
I’m an experienced poker player who has just begun to learn chess. One tool that helped me advance early in my poker career was a simple table put together by a smart and experienced player that associated various poker skills with advancement points in one’s career. The table listed the various stakes of play along the poker advancement ladder and then listed which skills the player should be proficient in before graduating up to the next level of play. For example, if the player wanted to have a reasonable chance at success playing $1/$2 then he ought to be proficient in skills A, B, and C. If the player wanted to play $2/$5 he would need all of the previously listed skills plus skills D and E.
I’m wondering if a similar table could be written for Chess, replacing the gambling stakes with basic ELO levels, 800, 1000, 1200, etc.
For example, if a new player has learned to rarely hang pieces anymore, what ELO level could he be competitive at? Now take that same player and add an ability to identify, use, and avoid the most basic one-move tactics like forks, pins, and skewers—at what ELO would he have a reasonable chance at victory? Or, to use an example at the higher end of the ELO spectrum, at what ELO would the player need to have engaged in an extensive study of openings to be competitive?
Is it possible to create a meaningful index like that for Chess? If so is anyone willing to take a stab at it?
here is a good article that has what you’re looking for http://beginchess.com/2009/08/02/anatomy-of-a-chess-player-from-beginner-to-expert/?amp
Not castling is overrated. Even in queenless middlegames, although the king is not necessarily in danger of being mated, sometimes it's nice to have it still tucked away, because the king being on a central file can interfere with your rooks that want to be there, and it's common for the king to get caught on some pin on the e or d file. That tactical awkwardness can get in the way of achieving a plan. I don't think there is anything wrong with 16 0-0. Sure, the king is not being made active just yet, but at least now the king won't get in the way of the other pieces, and white doesn't have to worry about the e file opening up on him.
Your ...Bxa1 (the move that got you into trouble) is, to me, more of a result of endgame inexperience than anything else. The way his rook won tempi on the bishop so many times is typical in an endgame: minor pieces are a lot looser in endgames because there are less pieces protecting each other and less squares under your control. White could only make a successful rook lift like that in an ending. So I would say your mistake was not being sensitive enough to how powerful the rook would be, and how it would exploit your loose bishop, which I would categorize specifically as an endgame skill. Moreover, the rest of the game was about endgame technique, and again, that kind of skill can often have surprisingly little resemblance to the sort of strategy that works in middlegames.