What is the difference between a 1900-2000 player and a 2200-2300 level player?

I have been thinking about this for quite sometime and this could be a very specific question but still any opinions or comments would be helpful.

What is the difference between a 1900-2000 level player and a 2200-2300 level player (ratings based on turn-based chess here for discussion sake) in terms of chess playing ability/understanding ?

To tell where I am coming from, I feel a 1900-2000 player too understands all the rules of the game, couple of openings, 2-3 moves planning, avoiding oversights etc. So what exactly differentiates them from a 2200-2300 level player?

(No I am not referring to those 2500-2800 players who put in gallons of hours of chess study as a professional but I am asking particularly about this range. Hope I am getting across my intent.)

Thanks and Cheers,

about two hundred points :)

2200-2300 rated players are better

2200-2300 players can see moves further, they see more tactical plays easier (i was a 1900 player before i quit turnbased and 2200 players always killed me)

They seem to find stronger moves then i could think of, seem to find tactical mistakes made by me and they have a stronger knowledge of openings, endgames and strategies.

And they spent more time in chess then i have, meaning there stronger overall.

Some ideas characterized here.

Thanks Artfizz :). Nice thread and hope I find my specific query addressed there.

Cheers,

2200 players rarely err tactically except in terrible complex positions. They have a strong positional sense for the game. They often understand the consequences for the endgame of moves made in the opening.

Best way to answer would be to pick some games between players in those two brackets and try to analyze the mistakes. Maybe you have played some games against 2200-2300 players yourself ?

I would say that difference 2200's are somewhat better (by a small amount) in is that all aspects of the game (tactics, strat, endgame, etc) ...

but, seem to really outshine 1900's in openings and positional understanding. My observation of 1900's is that they find themselves in difficualt positions quickly (often due to bad/dubious openings), and from there things can only go downhill. 

Btw, I'm not suggesting that 2200's know lots of opening theory (I dont*), it could be just that they are more willing to spend more time thinking about each move.  

*nb: I was a 2100 before a bunch of timeouts :) 

It would seem that the difference between 1900's and 2100's is that the latter can manage their time.

<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

I would also venture that square control, along with better board vision, may propel a player from Expert to Master.

Main difference could be will power to excel in some cases at least.. Patience in critical stages of the games

2200-2300 actually bothers to spend time looking at the board in correspondance chess, I just pretend it's simul : )

Well said ogerboy..

I suppose they just don't make as many oversights in general & they evaluate positions better (which imbalance is more relevant in the position etc) and therefore come up with more accurate plans & they actually know how to play the endgame.

I asksed a master one time what it was like to beat an expert -- what kind of mistakes do they make?

He said for one, tactically masters are better.  But besides that experts can often strike on the right plan, but the move order or the way they try and impliment it is flawed (if not tactically because of the endgame).  It's not that experts are bad players, but masters are just generally better in all areas.

Of course IMs would say the same about masters and etc. all the way up the ladder.

Thank you friends for your replies. I think I now have a fair idea on where the two ranges stand.Getting into the 2200+ zone would be my next new year's resolution.

As a sidenote, I registered today for my first OTB tournament in 3 years in my city. Needless to say I am excited and looking forward to it. Hopefully I play and enjoy chess well there.

Thank you all once again.

Cheers,

 in real life a USCF1900 is nothing like what you described. What you described is USCF 1300-1500, but to be accurate I'm basing this on a minimum of 60 tournament games. A USCF 1900 knows alot of openings and can caculate 1-10 moves as needed.

They're obviously better or more experienced but I think mainly opening knowledge and endgame experience. Plus 1900s are sometimes intimidated because of the opponents rating

Patience. Knowing when to push things. Making less mistakes.

2200-2300 on chess.com generally have a decent all-round understanding of the game and rarely make obvious errors. They can take advantage of weaknesses and look for ways to create them. They do not always exploit minor weaknesses to the max and quite often let slightly better positions slip to even endgames when playing strong opposition. Their attacking game is often better than their defensive game. They are aggressive against weaker players and can drive home a well-prepared attack. They almost always win games where they are ahead in material (without positional compensation).

They know the type of middlegame they are aiming for and may have a longer time per move so that they can formulate decent plans and avoid tactical blunders. They know their strengths and weaknesses and are probably putting in some study time to iron out their weaknesses.