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

Not true,  We are talking about Fide longchess 1300s, One of my 1300 friends have ca 1550 blitz and 1700  daily rating. He doesnt hang pieces ,

A 1800 will easily beat a 1300.

I would say 500 points

an 1800 rated player is better in all areas than a 1300 rated player. A 2300 rated player is better in all areas than an 1800 player.

1300 Bullet and maybe.

I am below 1300 chess.com-blitz (and fide 1410), but i won against a Gm in a simultan 1-vs 14 he played on thursday. I only gave one pawn for nothing. The rest of the moves were good. He lost on time 2pawns up and quality down in an interesting position after ca 25-30 moves.

About 500 points.  The 1300 rated player is, according to Psychology Today, a more intelligent, sound minded, teachable, humble, socially more engaging with the opposite sex, with superior intuitive capacities, more accepting of others who disagree with their opinions, less dogmatic, disturbed, discombobulated, diversionary, insecure, given to sexual depravity, less recklessly impulsive, not given to the same highly sociopathic tendencies and overall, just better human beings who earn nearly 38 percent more than their 1800 ELO counterparts.   Other than these differences, they are pretty much unequal. (Source: Wikipedia, 1988)

Paranoia, you have to be really paranoid to play chess well.

which wiki article?

500

 

it may be but i was hoping for a first source. there was no link.

Enough said.

I think we at 1300-1400 has big problems with many openings, both because of lack of positional understanding and also because we do not really know many openings well. If I survive the opening, I may have a good game, but this weekend was horrible.  A 2034 and a 1730 crushed me after bad opening errors, due to lack of knowledge and making positional and material blunders . The games never became interesting. It was too ugly.  The experienced players knows their openings. 

 

In Daily-correspondence I perform a lot better, because I have the openingbook.

1300 players generally have no clue how to convert winning endgames and will often manage to lose endgames that should be drawn. 1800 players are generally somewhat competent at elementary endgames.

1300s also tend to get so wrapped up in their own plans that they often forget to think about what their opponent is trying to do.

Another important difference is that 1300s often commit multiple fatal blunders every game. 1800s still do this occasionally but it’s much less common.

I’m about 1850 now and I used to be 1300 years ago, so this is at least what the difference was for me.

I’ve played many 2000+ players, and I think the main difference between me and them is the fact that they are far more tactically accurate than me, pay better attention to detail, and have better opening knowledge and better grasp of positional subtleties.

Simply put 1800 rating is great for a mediocre player, average for good players and mediocre for the elite.

I was gonna put that. Good job.

But seriously,  I think it's strategic understanding, that's the main difference. 

1800-1900 = half decent players. imo

Makes less blunders and has better plans in the middlegame idk