The 1800 player knows more, sees more and makes fewer mistakes. Likewise as you go up the ratings list. Tactical skill is the most important element. Strategy is easier to learn than tactics. The idea of tactics sounds easy. However, many tactical solutions are anti-intuitive and therefore unless you have a good sight of the board as an experienced player, you are likely to miss the solution. Capablanca who is reputed to have been a positional player said that you have to learn tactics before you can hope to master strategy. No good getting into a good position if you don't know what to do when complications come around. Look at Capablanca's games when he was young. They were very tactical. The same with Petrosian. Karpov was surprised when one day commentators wrote that he was a good strategist as he thought he was more of a tactical player. Tactics trainer is not necessarily the best for learning tactics. The computer will play ridiculous looking moves when it thinks the position is desperate. The ridiculous looking moves are simply tempo moves, moves to draw out the game. They are not logical moves as such.
what's the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?
The 1800 player knows more, sees more and makes fewer mistakes. Likewise as you go up the ratings list. Tactical skill is the most important element. Strategy is easier to learn than tactics. The idea of tactics sounds easy. However, many tactical solutions are anti-intuitive and therefore unless you have a good sight of the board as an experienced player, you are likely to miss the solution. Capablanca who is reputed to have been a positional player said that you have to learn tactics before you can hope to master strategy. No good getting into a good position if you don't know what to do when complications come around. Look at Capablanca's games when he was young. They were very tactical. The same with Petrosian. Karpov was surprised when one day commentators wrote that he was a good strategist as he thought he was more of a tactical player. Tactics trainer is not necessarily the best for learning tactics. The computer will play ridiculous looking moves when it thinks the position is desperate. The ridiculous looking moves are simply tempo moves, moves to draw out the game. They are not logical moves as such.
It depends on what level the tactics or strategy are. At the lower levels tactics is easier because of simple calculation needed to determine if something forces the win of material, mate, or a positional edge whereas strategy isn't as concrete. Strategy requires taking everything in, sizing up a critical position, and composing a plan. Are you basing a plan off real weaknesses or dreaming of something that doesn't exist (such as trying to exploit the semi open g-file and doubled f-pawns against a Sveshnikov Sicilian... or anything where such a strategy wouldn't be appropriate)? Is there a precedent you can recall here? Such as a Kasparov game you looked at? What are the similarities of that position? What are the differences? Even a seemingly small difference could mean trying what he did would be a complete dud in your position due to a seemingly small difference. If you can't recall a precedent then you're on your own, but should still recall imbalances, form a plan, then calculate your candidates. Does the position call for you to stop his plan instead? Then calculate those candidates to make sure he can't formulate a new plan based off new weaknesses if any you created.
See? Strategy is far less straightforward than calculation usually. Certain tactical positions however can be quite difficult as you'd have some only moves that aren't quite obvious until you look far and wide. Then you have to assess the positions at the ends of those variations and make sure you don't prematurely stop (a half ply afterward could be a big refutation)
1800's make many more non-losing moves, and a few more winning moves.
Therefore, nine times out of ten, the 1300 player will contrive to lose an even game. The 1800 will only do that four times out of ten. Maybe that's the REAL difference!
I think that is relative to whom they are playing.
Hello
I'm wondering, what do you think is the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?
The 1800/1900 player sees Chess as a unified complete whole he plays with a plan from the start of the game with a clear aim he doesn't guess move to move he knows what he wants the 1300 is a blind man stumbling around in the dark.
Hello
I'm wondering, what do you think is the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?
The 1800/1900 player sees Chess as a unified complete whole he plays with a plan from the start of the game with a clear aim he doesn't guess move to move he knows what he wants the 1300 is a blind man stumbling around in the dark.
A 2300 player says the same about an 1800 player, as does an elite GM about a 2300 player.
Strange to think 1300 to 1800 is the same number of points as 1800 to 2300.
1800 to 2300 you have to learn a lot more, but I don't think the difference in play is nearly as obvious.
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.
I find my self doing the see what happens thing alot in unfamiliar situations. Helps you predict outcomes in future games tho as long as you learn from it.
Strange to think 1300 to 1800 is the same number of points as 1800 to 2300.
1800 to 2300 you have to learn a lot more, but I don't think the difference in play is nearly as obvious.
it might be to the 2300 player.
Strange to think 1300 to 1800 is the same number of points as 1800 to 2300.
1800 to 2300 you have to learn a lot more, but I don't think the difference in play is nearly as obvious.
it might be to the 2300 player.
Yeah, would be interesting to ask. Maybe it's about the same to them.
Other than the opening of course as some 1800s play a lot of theory.
The difference in rating is aproximately the same. I would argue that the difference between a 1300 and an 1800 is the same as the difference between an 1800 and a 2300. Then why is getting to 2300 so much harder? It is perfecting your play! Anyone can learn the rules of a game to rapidly improve, however to reach a very high level it takes more work, but the difference between them is still the same.
The difference isn't the same at all.
The expected score vs players +/- 500 points is the same though.
Ah as long as the rating is accurate the difference is the same.
I think we agree anyway... as you say it's harder to get to 2300.
The words I use are: "the expected score is the same." Or maybe "they're each a 500 point difference."
The 1800 player knows more, sees more and makes fewer mistakes. Likewise as you go up the ratings list. Tactical skill is the most important element. Strategy is easier to learn than tactics. The idea of tactics sounds easy. However, many tactical solutions are anti-intuitive and therefore unless you have a good sight of the board as an experienced player, you are likely to miss the solution. Capablanca who is reputed to have been a positional player said that you have to learn tactics before you can hope to master strategy. No good getting into a good position if you don't know what to do when complications come around. Look at Capablanca's games when he was young. They were very tactical. The same with Petrosian. Karpov was surprised when one day commentators wrote that he was a good strategist as he thought he was more of a tactical player. Tactics trainer is not necessarily the best for learning tactics. The computer will play ridiculous looking moves when it thinks the position is desperate. The ridiculous looking moves are simply tempo moves, moves to draw out the game. They are not logical moves as such.
I was taought tactics, and sacrificing material was easy for me. Strategy was much harder to learn. endgame also.
GreatOogieBoogie, I agree in one sense strategy is more difficult that tactics, but only in one sense. Everybody understands simple tactics. You can also teach strategic concepts to a player relatively easily although he may not be able to put them successfully into practice because each position is unique. However, try teaching tactics to a player the way Tal played, a combination of intuition and calculation. It looks chaotic by comparison to strategic concepts. Most games, even among strong players, are lost on tactics. If a strong player had access to a computer against another strong player who already had the better position, my money would be on the strong player with the help of the computer. By contrast every player can say to themselves "If only my rook could penetrate to the 7th rank" or "I have to exploit the isolated pawn". In tactics, if you miss the opportunity, it will disappear very quickly if not on the next move. Strategy is generally less critical and you can generally get away with the odd inaccuracy.
I think we agree anyway... as you say it's harder to get to 2300.
The words I use are: "the expected score is the same." Or maybe "they're each a 500 point difference."
ok yeah i was in general agreeing with you, i just would've used different wording.
Then why is getting to 2300 so much harder?>>>
Obviously because ability at chess, like at anything, follows a normal distribution. That means there are very few at the high end and it takes a lot of work and talent to get there. The difference between an 1800 and a 2300 is very far from being the same as that between the 1300 and the 1800.
Rating has nothing to do with the amount of time it takes to acheive it. It has everything to do about your level of play. It takes longer for most people to improve to 2300, and for most people getting from 1300-1800 is just a matter of hard work and away you go. The play level from a 1300 vs an 1800's level of play and the play level of an 1800 vs the play level of a 2300 is aproximately the same, at least that's the theory of it, if that is the way it is in pratice it's almost impossible to tell, but in my experience it has been that way.
Ah as long as the rating is accurate the difference is the same.
The difference wouldn't be a straight sum of but rather it would take far longer to go from 1800 to 2300 than from 1300 to 1800 because the 1300 would need to learn simpler, more basic concepts to reach 1800 whereas the 1800 would need lots more information and understanding to reach 2300 than the 1300 to reach 1800. A 2300 should theoretically be much harder to defeat or draw than a 1300 trying to beat an 1800.
Think of the rating scale as a track, the lower end is all air, but near the middle it feels harder to run through. Then you hit the 2000s and suddenly it feels like thick goo, so it takes much longer to run through. Finally you reach a brick wall where you'll need a hammer (read: very difficult study materials and coaching) to progress further, and there's thick goo on the other side...
.