Tactical Levels

I would like to lay out an idea I've been considering lately, and see if anyone agrees or disagrees or can help me extend it and develop it.  The genesis of the idea is that as I've stayed above 1400 blitz for a while now, where before I was often dipping below 1300, I can note some specific differences in my play.  And here is a sort of list of where I think play is focused by level, as far as I can go.  But I'm wondering if anyone would care to extend it further:

~800ish:  Main questions involve things like "did you hang a piece or did you give up a mate in one?" and then "did your opponent hang a piece or did your opponent give up a mate in one?"  These happen multiple times per game at this level.  If you never hung a piece, and never missed when  your opponent did, you could not have this rating.

~1000ish:  Pieces are still hung, but main questions start to be "did I (or my opponent) only guard a piece once when it needed twice?"  or "can I fork him (or can he fork me)?"

~1200ish:  Additional questions start to be along the lines of "can I use a pin or a discovered check to make a piece unguarded, or forkable, or whatever (or can my opponent do it)?"

~1400ish:  Here, which is where I now am, I am finding things to be different from before.  Though again you can still do piece winning tactics, I find a lot more that I'm saying "I will trade knight for knight, equally, because it opens the long diagonal which I control and you have no way to oppose that control"  or in the same sense "because it will open a file that leads to your king and you don't have sufficient defense there."  And this seems to me to be quite different from how I used to think.

So, if anyone agrees with any of that, what happens at 1600, or 1800, or beyond?

It's like... hmm, I don't know how to say it.

It's like very clearly defining what the threat is in your mind... and after you know exactly what it is, it really focuses your calculation and frees up your thinking. Instead of being a murky mess, the tactic becomes very distinct and exact.

What I mean is, you're aware of more options, but at the same time, you don't waste time calculating things that don't work.

Let me try to make up a position as an example. First how I expect most lower rated players to play it:

Ok, so what was missed?

I used a capture as a "threat" because that's pretty much the most basic thing (also trying to come up with an example is hard, so I went with the most basic thing I could do).

And earlier when I said options, hopefully it's more clear now.

If your opponent threatens a piece, you can play any move that threatens something of equal (or greater) value.

If your opponent has a 3 move combo threatening your queen, then you wont waste any time calculating anything that doesn't threaten checkmate, or their queen (or queening a pawn, you get the idea). So at the same time you're aware of more options, but also you're ignoring options that definitely don't work.

Maybe another difference is tactics that come at the END of a sequence, not the beginning.

For example (below)

(It's hard to make up a good one on the spot so just bear with me)

And of course "strong" is relative.

When I watch the super GMs in chess.com speed chess championship, the sorts of tactic patterns they spot instantly is mind blowing to me.

And at that level they're almost always intertwined with strategic ideas... like my first example the tactic exists because of endgame ideas like a pawn close to queening, a king that can infiltrate, split queenside pawns that are weak, advanced pawns that are weak, all that stuff.

In the 2nd example black might play d4 simply to rid himself of the isolated pawn, a common strategic goal that is justified through tactics.

Wow...thanks Farm_Hand.  Those are really good comments.

Congratulations on making a rating leap. I would say every 200 points people have a significant improvement in their chess playing ability. I will not speak to online ratings but otb since I re member my progress that way. Players 1400 and below have very limited knowledge of their openings. They often try to play trap openings or unsound pawn pushing too often. They have improved their tactics enough to not drop material from 1 move threats but do not understand holes in their position, space, time, or endgames. 1600s is another improvement. I skipped this and went straight to 1800 from 1400 in 3 months. I played many 1600 players and they often have better understanding of their opening and tactics. They will see 2 and 3 move threats given enough time and their endgame has some basics memorized like trading into passed pawn endgames where they can win. 1800s have actually put in quite a bit of study. Typically they will roll anyone 1600 or below quickly in the opening if they make many mistakes. They have some middle game knowledge that is specific to what they play both papain and tactically. They will find pawn breaks needed and understand what key squares to play against. Anyone 1600 or below has a difficult time finding weaknesses in their game. They will also be content grinding you down over many moves and more patient about when they strike to limit counterplay.