How much time they take...?
what's the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?
Sort:
Doesn't it depend on the person. I've known a couple 1300-1400 players who seem to understand chess almost as well as me, but they blunder and often make multiple "wtf" moves a game. Most 1300 players have a lesser understanding of chess than me. Many of them also don't know endgames very well.
I know a lot of 1800-ish players, and honestly they have very little in common with each other. Most A/B players (1600-2000 rating) have spent a good deal of time building (and yes, studying) the inherent strengths in their playing styles and learning how to steer the game in a direction they prefer, and covering for (or at least distracting from) their inherent weaknesses (which a player will still have even at the Expert level). However, there's no one path to this level of play.
If you're a 1300, I suggest taking stock of your past games and figuring out what types of positions and tactics you prefer, and which tactics from your opponents you are vulnerable to. Focus on openings that play towards those positions and tactics that help, and which make those tactics you fall victim to harder to spring. The above advice about loose pieces is certainly valid, but too much focus on protection can leave one vulnerable to overloading, and cause you to overlook forcing moves and complex tactics - particularly of the Zwischenzug type (and this tactical concept alone is often the difference between a 1300 and a 1600).
Better tactics, attacking ability and endgame technique; that is short version. Going through Logical Chess Move by Move help me get to 1500 uscf and higher, a strong chess foundation ( soundness) is the key to building your skills. No amount of studying Silman's book "How to Reassess Your Chess" is going to help, why, if your tactics is inadequate your whole game is wanting; it doesn't matter if you know how to place a knight in good square, when your opponent is setup a tactical motif that you miss and you lose because of it. It true that blunders is a key factor to low rated but it is true also that a D-class (1200- 1300) miss a lot simple tactical motifs or lose to poor endgame skills.Three chess books I will recommend is (1) Logical Chess Move by Move by Chernev, (2) Chess Tactics For Champion by Susan Polgar, this tactical book is not overwhelming. I like another tactical book better but I feel most amateurs aren't committed to go through 1001 tactical problems, that is why I omitted it from the list. And Silman's Endgame Book, its excellent!. Three books to get you to higher level, why stay at D-class (1200-1300), maybe at least one year of studying and you are in higher class playing strength.
usually I just checkout the oponents profile. The tactical trainer will give you an indication of his/her skills. I think that chess.com should only match players with the same tactical trainer skills, rather than their ratings. it would cause players to do tactical ratings so that they can be taken serious. personally my tactical rating is around 1650. I win 50% of my games. The weird thing is that people with quite pathetic tactical ratings can outplay me thus indicating that someone is cheating. is it not so that ones tactical skills win games. if you have insight to identify a winning line, you should have a greater probability to win. I cannot get my rating above 1300 for years now, and I been playing chess everyday. I should get better. When I play I am exceptionally strong, yet I stay way below 1300. i would say my insight into the game is most likely close to 2000, but the amount of engines on the sight, make a good players look like a beginner. I do win some as I occasionally can beat a chess App at a top level, buy fail to do so all of the time. I think that 5% honest players are correct, and they usually request rematch games, because you can actually feel if a players is honest. it has a specific feel whrn you do encounter a human intellect. Many players are so good at playing lines, that if you service that, then your tactics can kick in. This is alsoba way to know that you play a human.
"... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactcs, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov
Years of hard work and discipline.
Mika_Rao wrote:
why does it have to be a he?
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.
You got to see this game where I was near 1300 and defeated a 1800!
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.
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.
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!!
Less errors and a lot of .better understanding