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

This topic is actually very interesting and useful; trying to understand this difference can provide a bit of a roadmap to achieving 1800, which is a ways off for a 1300 player, but not ridiculously out of reach. A good thing to do is to watch ten 1300 vs 1300 player games and then ten 1800 vs 1800 player games. How many times did you see a better move than the players made? How many times did you predict a worse move than the players made?

Some people here are underestimating 1300 players, they don't drop pieces left and right etc., but 1800 players are seeing deeper many aspects of the game. 1800 players. when in middle game are already looking to achieve a favourable position in end game, most 1300s are still looking for the tactic to achieve a piece advantage. Also 1800s are much quicker and more accurate at identifying the weak points of the opponent's setup get a plan going to take advantage of those points.

There is not much difference.  The 1800s drops pieces and losses endgames against an equal opponent less than a 1300 would against an equal opponent.

Better at tactics

Understanding of middlegame planning, whereas a 1300 has no idea.

Decent understanding of endgames, whereas a 1300 will not know much beyond basic mates

1300 will be tired after 25-29 moves and will blunder. 1800 is about to become a grandmaster in future. Players are of different strength so they have different types of mistakes.

Has anyone said anything about memory yet? A 1800 player has a better memory and recognises patterns in openings , middle game, endgame and mating combinations. Intuition is probably based on previously encountering positions and drawing on that knowledge from memory, as well as their experiance that has got them to 1800.

One researcher has estimated that expert chess players have internalized somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 patterns, and that Grand Masters internalize between 10,000 to 100,000 patterns.

True, if the players have put the same effort into memorising positions. Chess is very much a game of pattern recognition.

Like :)

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

the beast mountain that awaits for them in the final

As a 1300+ player, I have played an opponent, rated several hundred points recently, so after the game ( which he won ), I did a computer analysis, and was surprised to see I had done only 2 blunders, 2 mistakes and 5 inaccuracies, why am I suprised, I thought it would be more

I am actually experimenting with positional play at the moment, and it seems to be working

You could say that ultimately, the most decisive part in winning chess is hitting on the correct decision - in other words, choosing the correct move. No doubt calculation is a very important tool, and it often helps us in arriving the correct decision. But we are only human. We could not calculate everything specially with limited time control. So how can we do this? We rely on our understanding based on the demands of the position. Good players do not necessarily calculate everything (I recommend you read Adriaan de Groot's experiments on the cognitive process of strong players which was published from his thesis entitled ‘Thought and Choice in Chess’. It is a very famous and enlightening work that you will surely enjoy). Sometimes they just need to take a brief look at the structure and the move will come out on its own as either forced or as an alternative. This suggests that they tend to be refined in their positional understanding, and this is one area that any ambitious chess player should try to master.

May I also recommend you Andrew Soltis’ book ‘How to Choose a Chess Move’. This is also a ‘mind opening book’ that you will profit greatly provided you read it critically together with a caution to your self not to be too obsessed with shortcuts. Rules are good guides but each has exceptions.

Good memory for positions is fine, but they are not everything in chess. How can you explain chess prodigies who play the game at grandmaster level after only a few years of learning, relative to adults who played it for decades without significant improvement? Typical patterns of attack, defense, combinations, etc., are good to remember, but chess positions do not always produced an exact replica. Sometimes, chess scenarios will compel us to be creative and do something that is unique.

"Experimenting"?

Strategy is just as important as tactics, when it comes to improving.  You need to work on all phases of chess.

Let's look at a couple of recent games. I made no selection : just picked the most recent ones in my database :

(to be continued...)

Many excellent points, also I believe at 1800 players have a decent understanding of unoccupied squares and areas. This adds to their tactical advantage. At 1300 someone tends to play the occupied squares mostly, planning how to defend and attack them. 1300 is by no means poor, just as we advance the amount of study increases.

Concentration.

The 1800 will doublecheck his analysis, to see if the move he intends to play hangs any pieces.

A 1300 will analyze a line once, and trust he has made no mistakes.

A 1300 also will not look for his opponents best move, most times.

An 1800 will.

Vry true...as someone earlier posted.  Hope chess

tenterhooks wrote:

Experience.

.

Yes. And no.

I have guys in my club who have been 1300 for the last 30+ years. Playing every week.

Experience alone is over-rated.