You got to see this game where I was near 1300 and defeated a 1800!
what's the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?
Sort:
It is the calmness and stamina. I was 1500 playing a 2000. I spent most of my time and energy in maintaining an okay position, and out of exhaustion, I blundered a piece. Those two factors lead to less falling for traps. It is also positional judgement. In the same tournament, I wrecked a 1400 because I had 2 bishops for 2 knights and I used open files and calculation. Rating is not a major factor. Another factor is time management. I usually spend most of my time in the opening or middlegame. In that game, however, I used a tactic to my advantage. I spent most of my time left deciding that the tactic against my tactic would not work. Then, it is also franticness. I went to prevent counterplay before defending my two remaining pawns. Because of this, I was up a bishop and completely winning. It is also quick calculation. I had barely any time but managed to avoid his annoying mate threats. You might be thinking that I am 1500, not 1800. However, the performance rating from this game was 1800.
Feb 15, 2018
0
#584
Hokaido wrote:
Mika_Rao wrote:
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.
why does it have to be a he?
Because he wanted it to be?
The 1300 rated players has very great weaknesses in all parts of chess. But the 1800 rated guys have also still great weaknesses. For example we had some expert coaching in our last club evening. One teammate rated about 1800 Fide-Elo had NO knowledge about King and Pawn vs. King, Opposition, etc.. In one tournament game with black he was out of book after 1. c4. But giving him a any middlegame position in a structure where he feels comfortable he plays much better moves than me!
From 1300 to (near) 1800 i played a lot of competition and online chess, studied a lot of openings, tactics, endgames and also manuals about positional manual. I also got some private lessons by experts, CM or FM player.
Knowing some mainlines AND why the mainlines are mainlines collects a lot of points against unaware opponents with weak moves very early. E. g.
is something i got quite often in online blitz and also three or four times in standard otb games agianst players rated below 1500 . It takes about 15 minutes to memorize AND understand all lines after 2... Nf6, when you understand basic concepts like the centre and develoment.
Targeting the b7-pawn is also a very common theme in 1. d4 d5 openings after black moves the bishop to f5 or g4. Another sample for that is:
But you see that there are always tactics. Study tactics in general and also common tactics in your openings is likely more effective than memorizing 1000 more moves.
Feb 16, 2018
0
#586
It's good that you played a higher ranking opponent to learn from them. You will probably be a better player in long run.
1400136896 wrote:
You got to see this game where I was near 1300 and defeated a 1800!
I'd love to, but where's the game??
MathWizKidA wrote:
1400136896 wrote:
You got to see this game where I was near 1300 and defeated a 1800!
I'd love to, but where's the game??
Just read under the comment. Right after it he sent the link for the game. Don't act impulsively. By the way, acting impulsively is another difference. There was once a world champion who sat on his hands. However, 1300s usually play more illogically.
The question does not make sense since there are so many different ways a person can be an 1800 rated player or a 1300 rated player. The only answer that is simple and has an equal amount of nonsense:
*** Simple Answer ***
A 500 rated player?
Cavatine wrote:
The question does not make sense since there are so many different ways a person can be an 1800 rated player or a 1300 rated player. The only answer that is simple and has an equal amount of nonsense:
*** Simple Answer ***
A 500 rated player?
I like your mathematic humour 
,
There are more answers in the mathematic.
The difference is of course the statistic, , and in the same way as in mathematics we can see that the players/pupils takes steps every lesson, and every year. We are building knowledge all the time, and the eight class mathematic pupil knows more than they in the third class. Same in chess. They who have been playing and learning more are more advanced. I was at the 1300s back in 2017, and expect to hit the 1800s a lot of games and lessons later, maybe between 2019 and 2025. Some superkids may run trough the 1300s at the age of 9 and hit the 1800s at the age of ten or eleven. Those kids may already play at 1800 strenght when they are at 1300. One kid I know that was 1300 a couple of years ago and 1773 now. He has advanced to the national kid team, and when travelling in a car he and his teammate plays blindchess. I hope he starts at the GM-school (NTG, Norsk Toppidrettsgymnas). I did beat him when he was 9 or 10 years old and ca 1300. I was briefly visiting the 1400s back then and he actually crushed me, but the game lasted to long after he should have been in bed, and I was playing slow and officer down. He was struggling to stay awake and blundered his queen.
The 1800s have gathered a statistic with more victories, which they have accumulated during time. They have taken more steps on the ladder. Some 1800s have settled on their steps, and others do still climb, and some of them might even take steps down. The 1300s usually are climbing, and fighting trough an era of blunders.
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Cavatine wrote:
The question does not make sense since there are so many different ways a person can be an 1800 rated player or a 1300 rated player. The only answer that is simple and has an equal amount of nonsense:
*** Simple Answer ***
A 500 rated player?
I like your mathematic humour ,
There are more answers in the mathematic.
The difference is of course the statistic, , and in the same way as in mathematics we can see that the players/pupils takes steps every lesson, and every year. We are building knowledge all the time, and the eight class mathematic pupil knows more than they in the third class. Same in chess. They who have been playing and learning more are more advanced. I was at the 1300s back in 2017, and expect to hit the 1800s a lot of games and lessons later, maybe between 2019 and 2025. Some superkids may run trough the 1300s at the age of 9 and hit the 1800s at the age of ten or eleven. Those kids may already play at 1800 strenght when they are at 1300. One kid I know that was 1300 a couple of years ago and 1773 now. He has advanced to the national kid team, and when travelling in a car he and his teammate plays blindchess. I hope he starts at the GM-school (NTG, Norsk Toppidrettsgymnas). I did beat him when he was 9 or 10 years old and ca 1300. I was briefly visiting the 1400s back then and he actually crushed me, but the game lasted to long after he should have been in bed, and I was playing slow and officer down. He was struggling to stay awake and blundered his queen.
The 1800s have gathered a statistic with more victories, which they have accumulated during time. They have taken more steps on the ladder. Some 1800s have settled on their steps, and others do still climb, and some of them might even take steps down. The 1300s usually are climbing, and fighting trough an era of blunders.
Yes. This is all true. I have looked up a mathematical tecnique for calculating how many norms you have. In order to stay in whatever category you are right now (1st to 4th), you must have 5 norms. If you have any questions, please quote this comment with your question. Thanks!!
DjonniDerevnja hat geschrieben:
Some 1800s have settled on their steps, and others do still climb, and some of them might even take steps down. The 1300s usually are climbing, and fighting trough an era of blunders.
Aduld chessplayers are usually stagnating or decreasing. Some aduld beginners are increasing, but finishing on 1300, 1400 or something like that is more the case than reaching 1800. Maybe some guys who are stable in the 1300s over years do some training, but they don't rise further than 100 or 200 points with much effort.
Feb 19, 2018
0
#593
Compared to a 1300 player, the 1800 player:
1. Drops pieces much less often.
2. Makes threatening moves more often and points more of his pieces at his opponent's king.
3. Recognizes tactical patterns more quickly and accurately.
4. Recognizes and acts more often on key Positional Motifs like a Knight Outpost, Backward or Isolate Pawn, Open File, etc.
Feb 19, 2018
0
#594
Die_Schanze wrote:
DjonniDerevnja hat geschrieben:
Some 1800s have settled on their steps, and others do still climb, and some of them might even take steps down. The 1300s usually are climbing, and fighting trough an era of blunders.
Aduld chessplayers are usually stagnating or decreasing. Some aduld beginners are increasing, but finishing on 1300, 1400 or something like that is more the case than reaching 1800. Maybe some guys who are stable in the 1300s over years do some training, but they don't rise further than 100 or 200 points with much effort.
You're exaggerating.
While it's true that internalizing chess while your mind is still developing is very important if you wish to play at the very top level, suggesting that 1300-1400 is the ceiling for those learning the game as an adult is laughable.
I began learning chess at the age of 32. I was about 600 - 800 strength. I'm 36 now and a Class A player. And don't pay any mind to my rating here as this is a new account (I've yet to lose BTW).
My ceiling is FIDE Master. It will be very hard, I realize that. But I will do it.
I have a talent for chess. Had I internalized the game as a child my ceiling might have even been International Master.
Feb 19, 2018
0
#595
my God quit bragging your archive says it all; you're playing people in the 900s-1100s . . . Every win is non quality. wait until people start engining you
Feb 19, 2018
0
#596
Statute wrote:
my God quit bragging your archive says it all; you're playing people in the 900s-1100s . . . Every win is non quality. wait until people start engining you
That wasn't the point and I think you know that.
I was just trying to avoid someone being misled by my chess.com rating.
As far as non quality wins, I set the seeks and play any takers. It's not as if I'm trying to play scrubs. In any case, this account is about experimentation with new openings and such, so I welcome the lower quality opponents.
Feb 19, 2018
0
#597
Ratings is one factor and also average opponent victory and loss shows difficulty of opponents. Tournament victories might is another quality factor. Enjoy the game, learn from mistakes and do your best.
Feb 19, 2018
0
#598
If you go back to the first few pages and take a look at the games that hicetnunc posted, the answer becomes self-evident.
LosingAndLearning81 hat geschrieben:
Die_Schanze wrote:
DjonniDerevnja hat geschrieben:
Some 1800s have settled on their steps, and others do still climb, and some of them might even take steps down. The 1300s usually are climbing, and fighting trough an era of blunders.
Aduld chessplayers are usually stagnating or decreasing. Some aduld beginners are increasing, but finishing on 1300, 1400 or something like that is more the case than reaching 1800. Maybe some guys who are stable in the 1300s over years do some training, but they don't rise further than 100 or 200 points with much effort.
You're exaggerating.
While it's true that internalizing chess while your mind is still developing is very important if you wish to play at the very top level, suggesting that 1300-1400 is the ceiling for those learning the game as an adult is laughable.
I began learning chess at the age of 32. I was about 600 - 800 strength. I'm 36 now and a Class A player. And don't pay any mind to my rating here as this is a new account (I've yet to lose BTW).
My ceiling is FIDE Master. It will be very hard, I realize that. But I will do it.
I have a talent for chess. Had I internalized the game as a child my ceiling might have even been International Master.
I never wrote that 1300 or 1400 is the absolute ceiling for aduld beginners! But in my club and in other clubs from our region i've seen enough guys starting and hitting some kind of "local" ceiling on that level. They reach that ceiling with training in the comfort zone or in some cases no training at all. But they cannot overcome that. Most have jobs, familys, and so on. So for me the quouted statement "The 1300s usually are climbing" is a generalization i can't agree with.
With hard work and some talent progress is always possible. Of course there should be some 20 years long 1800 rated players becoming fide master after retierement. But gaining a little bit and then getting frustrated because it was not enough progress for that amount of work is practically seen more often.
I also learned chess when i was aduld. When i keep a daily training routine i maybe reach 2000 FIDE-Elo at some point. That's more than 200 points by now. I'm one of those guys who is in the "class B" range since eight and a half years. But most of the time i haven't done the hard work which is required to really improve. Watching chess videos, reading chess books with ammounts of texts like they are novels, memorizing openings and so in is not what is needed to really get better.
