The differnce between good and bad players..

My experiences via OTB play, about 1600 to about 2000, the difference is generally frequency of errors and mistakes. 2000 - 2200 there is a more noticable "increase" of strength.

Playing a 2200 player, I simply just lose without even making things remotely interesting. But against a 2300+ player who is at least an FM, I feel a sense of "pressure" against my position that I definitely don't experience with players 2200 or lower.

I can't differentiate between playing an FM, IM or even the rare GM I've played, their playing ability is too far beyond me to understand.

Interesting, I hadn't heard this before.

Maybe because it's nonsense?

rooperi wrote:

Is not the quality of their good moves, but the quality of their bad moves.

I think......

All wrong: it's dynamics... so combinations always win

Analyze this :

The difference between a good and a bad player may be hard to explain. An ugly player is easy to spot. I know this cc-member from Nevada of unknown gender. One look at it's face is enough to even lose an endgame with two kings only.

Of course there are good moves. And a good player finds a good move more often than a less good player.

Therev are also good overall strategies and a good player comes up with a strategic idea more often and sees it through more consistently.

Making poor moves that are less bad than the weaker player is just a sub set.

The way the thread is going, or specifically, the context: which stated (paraphrasing)"the difference between good & bad players", then made abit more definitive by the OP-"is the quality of bad moves...". Which could mean 'errors', is then elaborated by rooperi further, using golf.

Therefore, not comparing "good" & "bad" players but in actuality, the quality of errors commited by an "good" player vs an "great" (or "better") player engaged in the same position but both making errors. The takeaway thus becomes: the better player's mistake is not as bad or severe than the good player's which might cost him the game, rather than being "less than tenable".

Whew. I think i "get" you, rooperi!

(Or don't i? Heh. Oh well....)

8S

Good players shake your hand before, play good moves, and offer to buy you alcohol after

Bad players use engines.

EDIT: I mean engine users are bad players

Good players use engines for analysis

Yeah, something like that

rooperi wrote:

Let me give an example.

I go on TT, and figure out a fairly complicated 5 move combination, and score 100% (yay!)

The GM who played the source game played that combination no better than I did. We both did it perfectly.

But if we are both faced with a different position, and both play the wrong move, my error is likely to be far more severe than his.

It's like golf, my 30m put is every bit as good as a pro's 30m put, if they both go in.

But, If neither of us makes it, he's likely to finish closer to the hole than I did

----------------------------------

Interestingly, I thought of the golf analogy when I read your first post. As in, the better players in golf manage their misses better-if they miss, they're probably not going in the water or OB. This may be similar in chess.

Good player: fun person trying to create interesting positions

Bad player: anti-social person only in it to win it.

I find that strong players are thorough in their calculations, a great deal more than weaker players, who just kind of play with many generalities and very few specific ideas in mind.

Good players use their phones.  

Like those 839's that play 14 minutes vs. my 40 and make 3 mistakes in a 30+ move game... ever play those 800's?  Bunch of quacks