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


  • 2 months ago · Quote · #601

    bgianis

    Ziryab wrote:

    That article puts too much emphasis on openings, fails to recommend tactics training until a player is over 1400, and generally lacks descriptions of the characteristic weaknesses of each level. Aside from those flaws, it is not too bad.

    You didn't notice what it says.

    1200-1399: Study more openings, but do not stick with “rarely played variations”. It is a huge mistake that a LOT of chess player make while studying openings, to study rarely played/unusual lines which most likely would never come up in real life tournaments.  Studying standard opening lines would yield a lot more results!
    Spend maximum of 20% of your study time to study openings. Until 1800 level openings aren’t very important. Concentrate more on middle game and tactics.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #602

    Tapani

    DragonPhoenixSlayer wrote:

    A 1800 player has 14 lower Average Centipawn Loss wich is not a huge difference.But ACL doesnt care about openings so i would say better understanding of opening and endgames also slightly better overal play.

    Where does this come from? Is there any public studies about ACL <-> rating correlations (for lower rated player).

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #603

    KevinLudwig

    realistically, it's a little bit of everything. there's no magic to get you to 1800, or any other rating.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #604

    najdorf96

    Indeed. I think ratings are relative. I don't play chess competitively anymore nor study. It's just a hobby. My rating is just an indicator on this site how experienced I am. 30+ yrs. I imagine anyone who is rated 1300 on this site wanting to improve to say, 1800 (or beyond) and is relatively new to chess overall, is going to go through some growing pains. Back in my day, I never had as many resources as we do now, if one was interested in improving you had to go get it. Books, tourneys, a love for the game and an often on again & off again commitment.

    In hindsight, I can honestly say I studied more than I improved. Pattern recognition is to me, stifling.

    Studying a fair amount of tactics, combos, which is to say not make it a priority, is all you need. Essential endgame principles, positions is key. Mainline of openings is sufficient. In competition, of course keeping up with current trends is a no brainer. But for self improvement, I absolutely believe less is more.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #605

    stuzzicadenti

    The 1800 player knows that he sucks, the 1300 player thinks he's the best.

    It's not a difference in skill but in mentality.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #607

    DjonniDerevnja

    The 1300 is a couple of years (maybe more) younger than the 1800.

    I have a 1362 fiderated 56  year old friend , and it looks like he reaches 1800 when he gets 58, after five years of competing otb.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #608

    BettorOffSingle

    The 1300 hangs pieces and pawns, the 1800 hangs pawns and squares.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #609

    sagar009

    fewer mistakes and consideration of more number of moves

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #610

    BettorOffSingle

    DjonniDerevnja wrote:

    The 1300 is a couple of years (maybe more) younger than the 1800.

    I have a 1362 fiderated 56  year old friend , and it looks like he reaches 1800 when he gets 58, after five years of competing otb.

    In my day you had to be 2200 just to even get a FIDE rating.


Back to Top

Post your reply: