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

 Not a stupid question.  Just a few irrelevant, unhelpful, and not so nice responses.    The other responses helped me. 

One plays better :)

Difference between a 1300 and an 1800 player? Well, I at least have some very specific knowledge in the opening I play, with a deeper understanding about its underlying principles, though I also had to admit that some lines are just too complex and tactical to understand that I simply had to memorize it. In the middlegame, I don't play for luck. I can appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of my position. It is very important that I know when a pawn structure is weak and when it is strong (I am talking of course of such concepts as: isolated pawns, doubled pawns, hanging pawns, pawn islands, etc.). Who knows I may be able to turn the position to a favorable endgame afterwards. Good method in taking advantage of an outpost, weak square, weak square complex, quality of the piece/s that remains on the board (good understanding of piece exchange), files and ranks (most specially the seventh rank), situation in the center (aside from its obvious plus of restricting the enemy pieces, you can also assess when it is likely that a flank attack should succeed or fail based on the stability in the center), King position, and other elements of strategy is very important. I also have very concrete knowledge in playing endgames too, more importantly rook and pawn endgames, because it is the most likely to occur. Concepts such as opposition (direct, distant), zugzwang, square coordinates, Reti's study about practical route on the geometry of the chessboard, the Lucena and Philidor Position in rook endgames, etc., will come in handy during this phase of the game. Tactical vision is 'common sense', and it probably amounts the greatest statistics of why a 1300 player will lose to an 1800 player. I also must add that chess is not about having a winning position. The most important thing is you actually win the game, so you have to be practical. If you think that with normal play, or even with slight inaccuracy of your opponent you are still bound to lose, it would be to your interest to complicate the position. In that way you create a greater opportunity for your opponent to go wrong and consequently increase your chances.

^I'm surprised that is the first post where I saw anything having to do with endgame skills. Almost certainly the 1800 player has basic endgame knowledge that the 1300 player doesn't.

Perseus82, thank you for the comment!  It was very interseting.  Do you think that if a 1300 player played a 1800 player endgame knowledge would be important, though?  While a 1800 undoubtedly has more endgame knowledge, I think that the game would be virtually over by then.

Also, you're a 1800 player, and I am 1293 (almost 1300) on live chess .  Would you like a game?  I think that would be very interesting (not that I think that I'll win).  But I think that it's an interesting idea. 

One strategy an 1800 could use against a 1300 is: simplify into an endgame. That would give them an almost sure win, as a 1300 rarely has much endgame understanding.

This is actually what I do when I play lower rated players and don't necessarily feel like putting a lot of energy into the game. As a 1600ish playing a friend who is around 1200, if we trade queens, I basically won the game already.

A 1800 blunders less. But of course also with 1800 you dont understand much of chess(compared to all the much better players

I thought this was checkers, im only rated 1300:(

Five hundred rating points.

Well, I'm U.S.C.F. 1434 and when I lose to higher-rated players, it's either because A) they complicate the position to a point where they understand the tactics better than I do, making it likely that I will blunder, or B) they convert to an endgame in which they are more experienced than I am. I think the two major areas where 1800s are better than 1300s are tactics and endgames, since those are the areas I am most likely to find myself outmatched in when playing a better opponent. I would say that 1300s blunder a bit more as well, which has to do with the tactics, although to say that they "drop pieces left and right", as an above poster has stated, is an exaggeration. That would be accurate for 1100, though.

Main difference is evaluation. Of course 1800 can calculate better but if an 1800 had evaluation skills of a 1300 then he wouldn't be 1800 anymore but probably 1400.

I think an 1800 player is better than a 1300 player in several aspects of the game. He is some better at tactics, positional play, knowledge of openings, and calculation ability. The averagae 1300 player can't improve in just one thing and become an 1800 level player.

Thanks fora good question James! 

when the 1300 beats an 1800 really how accurate is your rating system? Its a probability at best, every game is about equal in the beginning, I have outplayed alot of opponents well above my rating. Why is it hard to get an 1800 to play you when your a 1300?

agreed, good point.

I think thats a stupid question cuz its quite obvious

There is no such thing as a stupid question. Only stupid answers.

The major difference is a 1300 player will make more tactial mistakes in a normal game.

Yep

Yeah, I agree. The game would probably be decided earlier by tactics or some kind of contributed mistakes right after the opening or late middlegame. But even if a 1300 player is fairly careful not to allow any kind of tactical tricks, he is still way behind in terms of strategic understanding. In the earlier phase, he might be confident to think that his position is okay, but later on, little by little he will come to realize that his position is slowly going down the drain. Anyway, endgame knowledge is important too because it’s an ace the higher rated player constantly holds, and there are plenty of opportunities for him to do so specially against an opponent with a very far rating difference.

Yeah, it would be interesting if we have some games, but it is more profitable if we have some discussions too. I am equally curious about your thoughts and thinking patterns. Send me a friend request and pm me when we should play.

as an 1800, i support this response