Between 1800 and 2300, both positional understanding and technique kick in (hard !).
...and still calculation, but here it may vary from individual to individual.
I analyzed one of the games posted, it was quite fun! If anything these are great for working thinking process, calculation, and evaluation:
One word: tactics.
A 1300 player has a very limited knowledge of tactical motifs, and tactical schematics (those key tactical positions that are learned usually through the study of many puzzles, where they are later recognized as existing on the board during play).
Tactical ability enhances opening play: you are more likely to play good opening moves both to create tactical opportunities later on, and likewise to avoid opening traps.
It enhances middlegame play: tactics form the backbone of positional play; so the better your tactical ability, the more likely you are to spot, or see the potential to, see a possible position that is good and which you then have a strategic plan to try and create. So it improves planning.
It enhances endgame play: again, you are more likely to find decisive tactical opportunities that can create winning chances in equal endgames, and drawing chances in lost endings.
Its that same tactical ability that leads the 1800 player to hang fewer pieces than the 1300, and to decide the game by a tactical shot or better positional play (again based on tactical ability).
I think that is the single biggest difference between the 1300 and 1800 playing strength.
The only sensible answer is that it depends on the individual.
When I was 1300 Id have a move that would come into my head and I'd take less time than I do now to consider the short term and long term effects of it. I'm 1650 now so 1800 players are within my range to beat. Also the game doesn't become trade at all costs and hope for the best in the endgame
The only sensible answer is that it depends on the individual.
It definitely depends on the individual. What improved me from ~1300 to ~1600 wasn't much tactical ability at all. It was mostly improved focus and persistence, and a better sense of what to do in the endgame (and general late-middlegame plans that could lead to advantageous endgames). I think consistency (basically playing more often) and a bit of tactics will take me to 1800.
I think tactics, a better and more efficient approach over the board, and more persistence in so-called "boring" positions.
the main difference is that one is 500 elo ahead of the other
I entered this forum giggling, just knowing this would be written in the first ten responses. #2!! I love it!!
It's ridiculous to yell tactics because the 1800 has WAY more positional, strategical, theoretical, psychological, etc. etc. chess experience and skill. Magnitudes. Same with a 2300 over a 1800 and the same with a 2800 over a 2300.
Being a 1800+ (OTB) myself playing such a lower rated player one can just wait for mistakes. (But play your own objective chess. Strategies like trade queen based on Elo are stupid.) Ofcourse the material win itself might be tactical but the lead up to the position where the tactical shot is often was not.
Conversely playing against a 2300 one generally feels like playing against a force, a brick wall and his/her mistakes just don't seem to come.. Mine then do and usually late middlegame. Is that tactical? Yeah the shot might be but there was more to it. It's all around chess skill.
Passed the 100 mark!
One excels at beginner mind, is modest, humble, flexible, willing to learn, honest in experimentation, open to new ideas; the other, 1800.
Do you mean at live chess or online? Ratings seem inflated in the online list but probably slightly deflated on the live list. In general the 1800 is more solid, all things being equal. And probably knows some proper openings and stuff.
I think it's more about the pattern recognition than anything else - I know about weak squares, long term plans, and all of that (Soviet Middlegame Technique was the first book I ever worked through - it opened my world!), and I know a wide variety of endgame patterns, tactical patterns, etc., etc., etc., but I have to stop and deeply engage my mind "Look for weak squares, Ali - what is our strategy? Which minor pieces should we look to trade? Is there a tactic in this position?" And this vast interior dialogue slows me down AND directs my attention in a particular direction (I will miss obvious things while calculating through obscure ones!). An 1800 is doing the exact same thing, but the skill is much more potent, so she can look at a group of pieces and see the tactic - she's executed it hundreds of times already - you and I may see the same tactic - we've executed it a dozen times on tactic trainer - but it is something we have to work very hard to conceptualize.
Games are often not won by the depth of calculation. Games are more often won by the depth of chess knowledge and also the hundreds or thousands of positions stored in the mind along with the knowledge of how to play such positions.
good point
There was a really good game with Denker vs. Botvinnik in the Botvinnik. I'm not a 1...d5 guy just writing observations as I personally see them. 4.Bg5 is a great move too. However, 4.Nf3 develops while waiting to see what black does while also overprotecting d4, which is typically an object of attack for black. It can also go to e5 when appropriate. The darksquared bishop is usually a trouble bishop anyway where there's no real way of telling where you want it.
Also if you don't know the theory developing the knight is typically a good idea, same with castling (though there are cases when it's a mistake or even a blunder here 7.0-0 is perfectly alright)
You can certainly get caught in the Botvinnik after 4.Bg5:
The Meran, Botvinnik, and Moscow variations are very theory heavy and openings have quite a bit of permutations, too many to discuss . Let's just say that 4.Nf3 and 4.Bg5 are great moves that depend on one's taste.
Interesting question. If i knew i would be 1800. Or maybe it is study and play. I dont know if tactics and positional understanding would be good answers. I would say the ability to evaluate imbalances with a modicum of acccuracy maybe.
EDIT: I didnt read the whole thread yet, just answered the question.
Interesting question. If i knew i would be 1800. Or maybe it is study and play. I dont know if tactics and positional understanding would be good answers. I would say the ability to evaluate imbalances with a modicum of acccuracy maybe.
EDIT: I didnt read the whole thread yet, just answered the question.
Im USCF 1805, and to be honest i know next to nothing about opening theory. I understand the principles behind what i play, but thats it.
Interesting question. If i knew i would be 1800. Or maybe it is study and play. I dont know if tactics and positional understanding would be good answers. I would say the ability to evaluate imbalances with a modicum of acccuracy maybe.
EDIT: I didnt read the whole thread yet, just answered the question.
Im USCF 1805, and to be honest i know next to nothing about opening theory. I understand the principles behind what i play, but thats it.
Which is one of the differences between 1300 and 1800 players
By the way, tactical awareness is an important point, as already mentioned.
Interesting question. If i knew i would be 1800. Or maybe it is study and play. I dont know if tactics and positional understanding would be good answers. I would say the ability to evaluate imbalances with a modicum of acccuracy maybe.
EDIT: I didnt read the whole thread yet, just answered the question.
Im USCF 1805, and to be honest i know next to nothing about opening theory. I understand the principles behind what i play, but thats it.
Which is one of the differences between 1300 and 1800 players
By the way, tactical awareness is an important point, as already mentioned.
This is just my oberservation obviously, but when i talk to fellow A class players, the vast majority dont really "study" openings, and the ones that do, you know the ones...the ones that try to impress upon you how they know <insert opening here> 20 moves deep. I find are the ones that end up losing due to some tactic, and or strategic plan.
Do you think the old addage 'A bad plan is better than no plan at all' is OK for sub-1800 players?
Hesitantly, I'd say yes. A plan involves a coordinated effort for activity. This should at least give you practical chances against an U1800 opponent (even if your position is objectively worse). The alternative of passive / damaging moves is of course worse... just be sure your plan isn't disastrous as in hicetnunc's game 3 where black may have decided to attack the kingside with 25...g5.
Just some very general advice. When you pick a side of the board to play on, look for some of these: more space, more pieces participating, and targets. Preferably you'll have all 3.
Note undeveloped or poorly placed pieces aren't participating. By participating I guess I mean influencing that half, or more specifically, that quadrant of the board. Examples of targets include weak pawns, holes, undefended pieces, and loose enemy king.
Using this criteria, Black's "plan" with g5 involved nothing good for him, and in almost everything I listed good for his opponent.
Also with this criteria in the 2nd game notice all of black's moves after the opening (except a6, which was a waste of time) focused on the kingside and center. White, to his credit, also focused on the kingside, and in spite of some clumsy defensive moves he still had chances far into the game.