what's the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?

Hello

I'm wondering, what do you think is the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?

If it's a stupid question, please do not say "it's a stupid question".  That just wastes time.

Thanks

the main difference is that one is 500 elo ahead of the other

Personally, I think it's almost purely a matter of tactics. The 1800 sees more and calculates more accurately. Subtleties of position play probably come to play at higher levels.

Two things come to mind.  First is tactics of course.  The 1800 sees many more tactics and much more quickly.  This is what will win the game for almost any higher rated player (but especially for 1300 vs 1800).

Second is the 1800 has enough strategic knowledge that he'll always have a general plan his moves are working towards.

In contrast the 1300 will make moves in isolation e.g. I want my knight on e4... why?  Because it's a central square.  Is it a good square though?  I don't know, but it's in the middle so I think it's good.  And then the next move may have nothing to do with the last move.

Having a general plan will often automatically generate positions where tactics are available when playing against someone who makes moves in isolation.

Fewer mistakes.

I think a 1300 player will make moves and "see what happens" where a 1800 player probably has a much clearer idea of what's the best response, and is adept at exploiting a weak response.

It's not a stupid question as it goes to the heart of what makes one player better, it's not the ratings, those only reflect a players particulars.

Speaking as a 1300 player, all the above points are valid, sometimes on the odd occasion I will rely on instinct, sometimes it can be spectacular right, other times it can be spectacular wrong, for instance I am playing an IM at the moment, and trust me he is going to destroy me, but because he is such high rated, I haven't a clue how to defeat him, or even hold out for the draw, maybe some will say that attitude is defeatism, and probably true, but how in gods name am I supposed to handle an IM for me a 1300 player

Thank you for all your comments

They do not hang pieces. At least not directly.

And 1800's have their own struggles.  If you've been winning because you pounce on your opponents blunders and find yourself playing folks who don't blunder, you need to suddenly come up with real plans and that could plateau you for awhile.  On the positive side, now you can have a genuine contest of wit and will, or so I've been told...

EDIT: I think one of the Polgar sisters wrote about the 1800 plateau, but as usual, I'm wrong a lot. 

Calculation.

Class "D" players and below make multiple game losing tactical blunders pretty much every game.  Class "A" players still make tactical blunders, but you can't count on them hanging a piece to a simple tactic every game.

There's a lot of players that just play for traps and gimmicks right out of the opening, or else just turtle up, do nothing and wait for their opponent to make a blunder -- I suspect these people start hitting a wall around 1800.

In my opinion the difference is not about tactics or calculation, but about some understanding of positional play and certain ability of creating and detecting weaknesses in your opponent's position.

about 500 points...

500 pts

Consistency.

A whole host of things.  According to Heisman the primary difference is sub-B players play hope chess whereas B's play it moderately, and at the A level it's much rarer.  Hope chess is failing to see an opponent's reply that refutes your move whereas real chess is calculating to see if they have a good move at the end of the forcing lines that calls into question your candidate move's soundness.

Knowledge, technique, strategy, and observation are obviously higher.