thats asking a bit muc but just a list would be good.
What are the common characteristics of each level of play?
Sort:
Well he did say that just knowing the skills isn't good enough. You have to know how to use them in concert.
OsageBluestem wrote:Can you give us a list of the skills you are referencing that got you to the level you are at and how you got those skills to work together synergistically to accomplish your goals in the game?
It would be a very long list that you can gather from internet but may be you have to gather from here and there and refine it. I have written very long pages for my own reference.
In endgame alone you can see in an endgame book many pages of TOC or index.
In tactical combination alone there are a few motiffs and themes/patterns.
Then there is thought process to choose candidate move and to calculate branching variations.
Then there is defensive skill.
I haven't done much, because I'm just in the early process of my development plan. Yes, I have made some documentations but they are draft and need continous revisions. For example, yesterday I just found out something is missing or wrong in my thought process that I have developped previously so I modified them.
In general, the main topic is pattern recognition, both of quiet positions and tactical positions.
I related any of these skills/knowledge with openings/variations, so to transform knowledge into skill. For example, in an opening there are skills that you can hone, there are typical pawn structures that you can investigate to understand it, there are typical endgame possibilities, and so on.
One example for the skill/knowledge that is quite difficult is the understanding of the concept of "over extend". This is very useful in handling many positions/openings with possible f4 attack. I have a plan to study games in Alekhine defense to see if there is something worth further investigation.
Then there is skill about handling an open position which I have been working on. Most players sub 2000 are not comfortable with tactical open position but I'm starting to see patterns and becoming to feel comfortable with it.
The defensive skill is important because when you do an attack you should calculate the proper defense from your opponent. In opposite-side castling, though rare, the defensive skill is the most critical. But in general this skill is also important because there are many situations where we are offered a material advantage in compensation for defensive position (This can even be forced, such as by Smith-Morra gambit). For devensive measures, I studied Sicilian Dragon Yugoslav Attack, and play the Caro-Kann that serves many roles in my development program.
Then look at this small thought process cycle: 1) Evaluate position 2) Pick candidate move 3) Calculate variations. For each of these processes we can see that we need to know a lot of things (of course I have listed them). In this cycle alone, it is possible to determine a weakest link, it is possible to determine which (new) skill that we need to improve the overall performance of this cycle. For example, if during the game we are confused whether we have to do A or B, then we have a weak link in process #1. We just need computer help to evaluate the position that we didn't understand. I regard this as a (positional) pattern recognition.
echecs06 wrote:actually who cares as chess is not a science? I observed that the strongest players are those who can see and analyse logically the furthest!
It can easily become a science. It is a logic game. Let's put your observation into a little science.
Look at the small thought process cycle I posted: 1) Evaluate position 2) Pick candidate move 3) Calculate variations.
The performance of this cycle is affected by many things, positional skill/knowledge and tactical skill/knowledge. How long you can see further only plays a minor part in process #3. But I trained myself for long calculation because I believe I have talent for that, then I can benefit from the skill when I choose a game with combinational possibilities such as the King's Gambit. Calculation itself has no meaning if we cannot understand the position at the end of the calculation (if it is a positional combination), which is process #1.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing!
Wow. I started this thread on July 25th and my rating was in the 1380's or 90's. Now on September 8th it is 1555. That's a pretty big positive change in about a month and a half. I now have 117 games under the belt. Can't wait to see where things are around the 240 game mark.
chess is hard
Quasimorphy wrote:
Dan Heisman's book The Improving Chess Thinker is a good examination of this topic if you're interested in learning more about it. Strengths and weaknesses of players at the different levels are quite varied even within a class.
Yes, that is a good book pertaining to the OP's question.
I have the 2009 edition. An expanded edition was published in 2014, adding about 88 pages.
Amazon has both editions and plenty of reviews.
My rating is like 300 but i know some openings and my skill is like class G or H
Everybody below Class A plays more missed wins, blunders, and mistakes the lower they are. However, their good moves are fundamentally the same. Expert, Candidate Masters, National Masters, and Senior Masters have plays that are much different in nature.
That FIDE classification schedule is all in respect to Grandmaster level of chess, which does not apply to over 90 percent of people who play chess.
Kingpatzer wrote:
The following is greatly simplified and is from my admitedly limited experience and a viewpoint of a person in the middle of this pack. So my drawing lines for those above me in OTB rating may well not be accurate. I have also been pretty inactive in chess for many years until coming back to this site, so the differences might have changed slightly in that time -- though I doubt by much.
D-J = poor understanding of opening play, poor understanding of middle game play, poor understanding of endgame play, drop pieces and pawns regularly, miss basic tactics
B-E = basic understanding of opening play, basic understanding of middle game play, poor understanding of endgame play, drop pawns regularly, miss complex tactics
Expert - C = good understanding of opening play, basic understanding of middle game play, basic understanding of endgame play, rarely drop anything in unforced lines, sometimes find complex tactics
NM - B = solid opening play, good understanding of mibble game play, basic understanding of endgame play, don't drop unforced pieces, regularly find complex tactics
2400+ - Expert = solid opening play, solid middle game play, good to solid endgame play, doesn't drop pieces or miss tactics.
Lots of overlap between the levels, but in my experience this seems to be about where things sit.
The big differentiators are endgame play and tactics. There are class C players who know their pet openings as well as any GM, but have limited understanding of what to do in the middle game once they reach the end of the book. The lack of understanding happens because they don't know what trades are best for them because of the resulting structures in the end-game.
Tactics just continually get better as you go up the chain, as does the understanding of how to create tactical problems for your opponent.
Jul 25, 2023
0
#36
edrobin58 wrote:
Class K [0-9] I hear chinese go and majhong are good maybe I should try that instead.
Class J [10-199]- drops everything and makes random moves
Class I [200-399] - same as class J but they know a couple of basic mates
Class H [400-599]- Same as I but wont drop pieces for completely nothing but will still ose the exchange. Ex. I traded my queen for 2pawns but its ok cause I have less number of pieces of the board
Class G [600-799]- knows the value of pieces and simple attack and defense and basic mates but will still make random moves that they think is good like going for check cause they can and will drop pieces to simple tactics
Class F [800-999]- I know opening principles now and other stuff that class G players already know to and know a few tactical meaning.
Class E [1000-1199]- same as class f but knows basic tactical meaning but only like 2-3move ahead tricks.
Class D [1200-1399]- same as class e but doesnt fall for simple tactics and doesnt drop pieces any more but opening,middle, and endgame knowledge is poor.
Class C [1400-1500]- decent enough and rarely blunders but a phase or 2 maybe lacking in understanding.
Class B [1600-1799]- above average opening and/or middle game knowledge with decent understanding in the other phases
Class A [1800-1999] - above average in everything but still makes inaccuracies but you'll have to find them ;)
Expert/CM (candidate master) [2000-2099]- same as class A but dominately better in one phase
the lowest chess rating you can get is 100
Jan 7, 2024
0
#38
I am 12 and 1200 - 1399, Class D. Am I happy with it? Yes. Do I want to still rise? Yes.
Apr 6, 2024
0
#39
CharlestonViennaGambit wrote:
I am 12 and 1200 - 1399, Class D. Am I happy with it? Yes. Do I want to still rise? Yes.
I am happy with you bro I am class D and E are you happy
Under a certain level of play (1000?), learning "chess" itself is rather pointless, since you're still at a stage where one needs to integrate a few "sports" basics, probably common to several sports and board games.
Anyone can remember the time where their hand would jump by itself on the first piece they see, often without knowing where they'd play it, and then put it on the first suitable square they see.
And anyone can remember the time where they never checked on the possible meaning of an opponent's move before replying to it.
One begins to learn "chess" once they've integrated the basic sports discipline that allows one to play proper chess, which is a game where one do observe, check, verify, think again, double check (etc) before they play a move.
Which is why it's only so very wrong to begin the chess journey by playing lots of bullet and blitz games. I'd say Rapid is perfect for the two first years before one goes for classical OTB.
Once you're there, like 1000-1400, you're then the true chess beginner, and in between that and "expert", you can be rated so and so for various strong and weak points in your understanding of chess.
Which is why it's hard, imo, to set rules about what can and cannot, for an example, a player rated 1800: this may vary depending on what you studied more, and also on your style.
I could bable longer about it, but I do think this is enough of a glimpse for a starter.
Can you give us a list of the skills you are referencing that got you to the level you are at and how you got those skills to work together synergistically to accomplish your goals in the game?