What's necessary to move on up to 1800?

If you just play very good positional moves, no sac plays, can you move up to 1800+ and 2000+?   (do you just wait and hope your opponent makes a blunder?)  Seems a lot of games are ho hum boring and even in material well into the end game.  Is it necessary to learn to make sac plays in order to move on up in ratings?    

Would like to hear from 1800+ and 2000+ players.  Thank you. 

Well I'm 1700+ FIDE and USCF who's been over 1800 OTB and over 2000 correspondence in the pre-computer days, so I hope that minimally qualifies me.  And one thing I will say is you are limiting yourself by saying "no sac plays" -- sometimes a sacrificial attack is the correct way to proceed.  Also, as for "ho hum boring and even in material ... end game(s)", I win lots of games in the ending because lower rated players seem to have exactly that attitude, because of which they probably don't play the endings as carefully as they should.

If you can't play an exchange sacrifice when the position calls for one?  If you can't sacrifice a pawn for initiative?  You're limiting your game and most probably your rating.

Thanks 230, maybe you misunderstood, i'm thinking that one MUST learn and make sac plays to get better, was seeking clarification.  (recently bought a book on Tal, and it seems over my head right now, but am trying to see sac plays)  

   So you think one CAN go 2000+ by good positional play only and a great end game?  

And Chungle, that's what i'm thinking and talking about, one must constantly be on the look out for sac plays for initiative and position?  

Absolutely DW!  You have to be on the lookout for everything!  Of course you  could nuture the style and play of Ulf Andersson of whom Karpov said, "He plays as if he were an old man who knows everything and fears everything." (from Karpov's Chess is my life)   Andersson plays to not lose.  Not to win.  To not lose.  This is a difficult style to emulate and of course even Andersson wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice if he felt, strike that, could absolutely calculate to the end of a forcing line and then knew he held the advantage.  

As a player it behooves you to absorb as many lessons from as divergent sources as possible in order to fully realize your potential.  If it's a part of the game why not make it part of your armory?

I'm clearly not qualified to speak here, however, it seems to me, if you want to improve your rating, you've got to improve at finding the best move in each position.  If the best move in the position is a sacrifice, then you've got to have a system to identify it, or there's going to be a limit on your progress because you have no chance of finding the best move in certain critical situations. At some point in your progress, your opponent's going to be able to find those moves against you.  Of course, I don't know where that point is.

I'm of the "best move in the position" camp too, and while I'm not a great tactician by any means (I try to play strategic "sound" chess and then win by combination because I'm a bad endgame player), I understand the value of tactics, having been beaten by cold, hard calculation many times.   

Bottvinnik once said something like "Being good at chess amounts to being good at chess problems."   Which is to say, given any particular position, an accurate assessment of board and an appropriate move is what wins games.   You just have to do it over, and over, and over, until the game is done.   Sometimes this will involve a sacrificial attack, other times it will just be small positional gains.    Understanding which to do when makes you a better player.   

Playing "not to lose" got Petrosian a World Championship, but even he was capable of striking play when the position demanded it.   

BTW I got a tremendous benefit from studying Tal's book on the Tal-Botvinnik WC match of 1960

For a fully mature adult just picking up the game - How long would it be expected for them to reach ~1800 in OTB standard games if they had a natural tendency toward understanding chess? 

Ballpark estimate here...

in order to break 2000 you must do what is not and not do what is there to do. It is that easy!

ArtofWar, i'm guessing 3 years - that's with quite a bit of study.  i know real well an even more mature player, that went from where you are to close to 1500 OTB in a year and half.  Gains after that will come slower, being it's exponential at first.   

Bongcloud and Unmaster, that's good to know and hear, re: positional play.  

230, i'll look that game up, thanks. 

DJ, a year ago, i'd thought you were nuts, lol, but i fully understand what you're saying.  i played a guy OTB last week, and he got disgusted because i wouldn't make what he thought was the obvious and only move - i was searching for your 'what is not' move.  After about 3 minutes, i DID make the obvious move.  The guy was not happy though - blew him away though.  

Chungle, that's funny what Karpov said of Anderson - and good adice about drawing from all sources and types of play.  Seems that's what i'm trying to do.  Thanks. 

Just thinking about my games, and it's rare that i see a nice sac play, when i know there must have been some, though i know it'll come with practice.  Thanks all. 

Carlsen once said that its not the calculation that is hard but the evaluation of the final position .

Which is true because by then the only thing you could cling on is experience itself.It's either you have it or you don't

There's no single right way to approach this either.   Lasker had a winning record against Alekhine, a losing record against Nimzowitch, and Alekhine had a winning record against Nimzowitch.   Sometimes a clash of styles or ideas just means that a certain guy is tougher for one opponent than another.  

My question back at you, Davy:   If a sacrifice is made not for a mate but for positional reasons, shouldn't that be a major part of your arsenal as a position-first thinker?   I think one of the most beautiful ideas in chess is giving up material not for a direct win, not even for an attack, but simply for the potential down the road.    

Absolutely UnMaster.  i'm a long ways from that thinking though - hard for me to see that far ahead.  Something to strive for.  

Didn't know that about those 3 masters.  And wasn't Nim a great positional player?  I'd like to have seen he and Tal play. 

I'm currently rated 2000+ FIDE, and my highest CFC rating (Chess Canada) was over 2100. I reached this level without doing any tactical puzzles over a career of 13 years.  I have a solid positional style and know very few openings quite well (1. e4 e5, Colle, Trompowsky). Above all I try to reach positions with almost no counterplay for my opponents.  Tactical shots almost never occur because I strive for superior piece coordination with no pawn weaknesses.  I rarely get into time pressure now because I avoid complications while content to make simple moves.  I often spend great amounts of time double checking and verifying simple exchanges which suggests that I'm a poor calculator. I find it difficult to move pieces in my head and analysis. I'm also a very poor blitz player. With this style, it took me about 10 years to get from total beginner to expert.

Don't forget the pawn promotion to the end of the road Queen represents the sacrificial value of a rook and minor piece, although, depending upon the position,that Queen, if she is alone, may only hope to hold with perpetual check.

Playing boring positional chess is the best approach to win IMO. If you really plays postional chess very well, the endgame very well, you can be a FM. 

TheArtofWar82 wrote:

For a fully mature adult just picking up the game - How long would it be expected for them to reach ~1800 in OTB standard games if they had a natural tendency toward understanding chess? 

Ballpark estimate here...

3 to 5 years, but it depends a lot on how much rated games you can play every year (the more, the better)

I would also say 3 to 5 years. There are many resources to learn chess and improve fairly rapidly.

@dave : playing in an agressive style is the easiest road to 1800 level, as you can expect a lot of defensive mistakes from lower-rated players. Still possible to reach 2000 this way, but you'll probably need a larger set of skills to get there.