The quest from 1,600 to 1,800 rating

What would you say the difference is between 1,600 and 1,800 players? I think the difference is huge and is a lot bigger than 1,400 - 1,600 players. I can't get close to beating 1,800 players unless they underestimate me it seems,yet I can often lose to 1,400 players. What would you say is the difference and what would it take to get there? Thanks.

I've noticed that 1600 players continue to exchange off material for no apparent reason. The kind of exchange that just preserves game equality where neither opponent gained anything from it.

Have been doing 25 tactics a day on premium account plus another six with an app I have but still find myself missing a lot during games (thanks to computer analysis) and am halfway through reading an endgame book. Still its slow going and I'm also aware that 1,800 on chess.com is below the strength of a fide 1,800 player. Still I've noticed I'm not fearing higher rated players quite so much...

Sometimes yes I admit I will swap off material rather than moving backwards or if I can't find a better plan, though I try not to

Why not just improve the piece and move it around again?

Here's a nice example of a pointless exchange. Two connected rooks on the back rank. One controls an open file but your opponent also has a rook on that same open file. They exchange and you then recapture with your other rook. You have control of the same file again, nothing changed lol.

Diminishing marginal utility

If I can't see a better square I will swap it off. A lot of chess at my level just involves lurking around, waiting for opponent to err.. I am guilty of it too but I think that 1,600 players lack real positional understanding - again include myself in this, although I feel I am getting better...

In English please Zembrianator.

well practise at game stages where you are weak and suddently you will be a gm

Haha I wish :-)

Yes the more complicated the better I say. Keep the tension until they crack.

amilton542 wrote:

I've noticed that 1600 players continue to exchange off material for no apparent reason. The kind of exchange that just preserves game equality where neither opponent gained anything from it.

Sadism will get you everywhere ;-)

I've noticed that 1800s can make stronger moves faster and have better endgame technique, though depending on the 1800 can still flop in that area (many of this type are amazing in the middlegame.) 

1800's also typically are aware of the principles laid out in Shereshevsky's Endgame Strategy and have better awareness regarding pawn structures, though 1600's are typically positionally sound and won't trade off a great eternal knight for a dud bishop.  1600's also have more holes in their calculations and sometimes move too fast, overlooking in between moves and prophylactic refutations. 

Great Oogie - would you recommend Shereshevsky's book above other endgame manuals?

Depends on where you stand.  If you're 1600 then you've likely mastered everything Nunn's Understanding Chess Endings could teach and therefore have a good theoretical foundation.  So I would recommend it, but it's strategic endgames, which are a different category from theoretical endgames.  To confuse matters Fine's Basic Chess Endings and others have some strategic endings in it.

I've only just started on the endgame. Am currently studying Jesus de la Villa's 100 Endgames You Must Know, which is excellent for someone my level who's never taken the endgame seriously before. I obviously need to delve a bit deeper afterwards but I find John Nunn's love of endless variations tiresome, and impossible to remember.

You aren't supposed to remember the concrete analysis itself but rather the methods and obtain a feel for the technique. 

It took me a little bit more than one month to go from 1600 to 1800 USCF, but obviously I was underrated. The biggest difference is tactics, followed by opening knowledge. 1600s make a lot more blunders.