I do not qualify.
What is the difference between 21 hundred and 22 hundred player !?
Sort:
camter wrote:
I do not qualify.
Then why you are here?
Mar 7, 2018
0
#4
2100 and 2200 is not so good that there's only one way to get there. Some players are better at one thing or another.
There's only one guy I've played a few times recently over 2200. Probably a pretty common feeling when playing someone better than you. Things go fine, and nothing meaningful seems to be happening... then suddenly my position is very bad. He'll play stuff like the 4 knights or exchange variations of things, then put pressure on you for 50 moves in a slightly better endgame... I can't imagine all 2200s are like this 
In terms of accuracy 2100s feel the same, but error more frequently... like at least once a game I'll think to myself "that move is questionable, I think I can exploit it" but against that 2200 guy I never felt like that (although again, that could be because of his style).
we might find out if your going to play against the guy who told you to wait 5 days...
Mar 7, 2018
0
#6
DamonevicSmithlov wrote:
100 points. I hope that helps, good luck.
i was about to say that a similarity (not a difference) is that they're both 100 points away from each other
Mar 7, 2018
0
#7
Klauer wrote:
Actual rating expresses the performance of the past.
People are different. Performance in chess has different reasons. So behind ratings are different reasons.
This is a serious and meaningful answer to your question. If you don't feel satisfied by this answer you have to work out the question.
Yeah, pretty much this.
Getting to a rating isn't a specific combination of skills. There are many different types of players.
Mar 7, 2018
0
#8
ESP-918 wrote:
camter wrote:
I do not qualify.
Then why you are here?
Just letting you know I was conforming with your request, which, might I say, was an eminently reasonable one..
Mar 8, 2018
0
#11
OP is not getting a lot of help with his query, is he?
I think he will have to lower his criteria for qualification to answer.
Mar 8, 2018
0
#12
As a 2200 player myself, I'll offer my input.
A 2100 player, as stated earlier, can be quite good at one type of position yet deficient in another.
A 2200 player has usually shored up his weaknesses, and it's hard to beat them by just "moving them into a position they feel uncomfortable with".
Also, a 2200 player has developed persistence, tenacity and stronger will to win, which they have developed in the 2000-2200 grind.
Mar 9, 2018
0
#13
ChessicallyInclined wrote:
Also, a 2200 player has developed persistence, tenacity and stronger will to win, which they have developed in the 2000-2200 grind.
I think this is especially true if the player is a regular at a club that holds weekly or monthly tourneys where 2200 is one of the top players (as it usually is I imagine).
This means you have to win most of your games... and e.g. if a 1900 or 2000 player wants a draw in some pet boring line as white, that means you have to be willing to grind out a long game and test them for many moves. Or if some 1900-2000 10 year old wants a tactical slug fest you have to be able to handle that too.
(I pick a gap of about 300 points because it isn't someone you can beat automatically, but you'll want to have a high % against)
Please answer only if you have an experience (playing against both, reaching that level yourself , once were that level , etc.... )
Differences between 2100+ ELo and 2200+ Elo Fide rating players , NOT USCF !!!
Thank you.