What does a 1600 rated player know?

That a 1200 rated player doesn't?

The recipe for vegetarian mutton?

Everybody says to study, but I don't know what. Other than tactics.

http://www.chess.com/article/view/study-plan-for-intermediate-players-bringing-it-all-together2

play slow games, *think* about every move, hard, and study anything you can get your hands on.

 thats the same thing im talking about i wish someone answrs this question and why

Aren't the tactics lessons working?  It took me a year to gain 100 points (I mean, real points, not chess.com points)...back in the years when I was actually still gaining (now all I seem to be gaining is weight).

for my progress it want sorta like this

1000- Basic stuff but mostly just playing alot of games (2 or 3 years)

1000-1106 Tactical definitions and learning opening principles (8months to a year)

1106-1215  opening knowledge/theory along with  basic endings (6months to a year)

CURRENT 1215-1555 playing more but actually goin over my games. exercise and a few tactics. (3 or 4 months)

the more you know in general the quiker it is to get better.

otb or online rating here in this thread ?

Not for me.  It was 100 points a year, every year (except when I stalled out in the 1600s for the better part--hm, maybe that's not quite the right phrase--of 2 years).

I am currently on page 4 of my first chess book. I have done TT, but I don't know if I consider it to be studying. It doesn't seem to have had much impact on my play. Other than TT, I haven't studied any.

And even so, my OTB would probably be a lot worse because I use opening explorer rather than learning openings.

To summarize, my current rating is the result of a very casual approach. I would like to improve, but so far haven't had time to invest in it. Maybe once I finish getting a CPA I'll have more time . . .

What approach are you using, woodshover?

I forgot, back when I was first starting to play, I did Waitzkin's series of lessons in Chessmaster.

Ask Mr. Silman, he should be the expert here. You could also try asking various coaches here and titled players such as WGM Pogonina; I'd be  inclined to take their answers more seriously than those from patzers such as myself. Also I presume when you say 1200 and 1600 you mean the ratings here and not USCF right? Because the ratings here are very inflated compared to USCF ratings.

Instead of focusing on a number, do concrete things to improve. In the end game, learn opposition and triangulation. Learn Lucena's position in rook endings. Learn the files on which passed pawns can be drawn with a king and which files they can't. Learn and practice back rank mates.

I'm not that good myself, but there is always something you can take away from studying your own games. There's no magic bullet. It takes a lot of work.

How to tie his shoelaces

The multiplication table of 1

At least three quarters of the alphabet

etc. etc.

is the 1600 player a best player or something??coz i rekon i can beat anyone here 

Woodshover would crush you. You wouldn't have a chance.

 I think that this is the best answer given so far. Learn basic tactics and basic positional play and learn to look for them in games. Get ahold of Ruben Fines "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" if you can. Play 1600's and do unto others as they do unto you.   

I think the 1600 player doesn't hang pieces anymore, but the 1200 does.

There seems to be a lot of members that are unaware of the terrific study plans recently released by Chess.com. I highly recommend them for beginners and intermediates. The only way I know to currently get to them is through Webmaster's blog (maybe this is why more don't know about them). More advanced plans are in the works. Browsing thru the two sets of plans will give you a rough idea of the knowledge difference between beginners and intermediates and also address the question of what to study.