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

.

Yeah, that's a good explanation for "evaluation." An 1800 may not necessarily calculate better than a 1300, but almost surely he can evaluate better.

"Evaluation" is a good word for it.  It's probably more the difference between a 1500 and 1800 than a 1300 and 1800. 

That sort of evaluation is more about "what" to calculate and not "how" to calculate.  Those are the games where you and your opponent are trading pieces and then you notice you are all tied up but don' t know why.  Meanwhile your opponent has a N in a hole on the c file blockading a backward pawn, his two bishops are pinning pieces, and your one bishop is biting on its own pawn chain.

How did I get here?  Look all the material is equal.

A lot of assumptions are being made. Automatically it's assumed the 1800 is a better positional player?

And bandwidth! Oops, I just did it.

An 1800 player, will calculate moves more deeply and a 1300 would just calculate few moves ahead.

1300 rated players can calculate. Hmm. Interesting presumption. Maybe it is board blindness then that leads them to hang pieces and drop them so often to simple 1 and 2 move tactical shots.

Perhaps if they applied their calculating prowess to what the opponent could do on his next move or 2, they would get past 1300.

Exactly. Of course i saw 16..e4 when i may be forced to exchange my indian bishop or get pinned with ...Nf6. Not only white will solve his problem with Nfd4, but it would be very difficult to create some harmony with my pieces.

I've been playing KID for many years and from what i've learned, one must have the guts to 'burn the bridge' whenever necessary. The position can easily become murky and imbalance. It's true that ...Nxf5 is critical because it surrenders the e4 square, but in return black's pieces can easily become active. He has the half open-file for his rook, good outpost for his knight, leeway for his Queen which might want to go to g5 or h4, and greater scope for his light-squared bishop. I simply don't think white has the time to take advantage of that outpost on e4. 15...gxf5 is a reasonable and perhaps less risky alternative. I did mentioned that move during our game, but i just felt it slow and a little less to the spirit of the position though i could be wrong.

Swaggaton wrote:

The 1800 rated player has more luck

.

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

I was so excited to see this post...when I saw it I thought to my self.."ooo man I cant wait to say 500 pts "......lol you sil

ly goofs should be ashamed of yourselfs.

1800 player is better in chess

Really?

.

More activity of unconscious mind.(in chess)

"Calculation" is a recurring theme throughout this discussion, with many seeming to assume a 500 point rating difference at the intermediate level is sheerly due to increased ability in calculation depth. This is not true at all.

As far as calculation goes, its more true that your accuracy improves over pure depth. You also spend less time calculating moves simply because you learn when calculation is necessary and when it isn't (which is still very imperfect at intermediate level, but much better than at beginner level).

Much of what has to do with the calculation side has very little to do with calculation depth and instead what you do calculate:

- you begin to look deeper into lines that superficially look to lose your own material, whereas beginner level will stop calculation the moment they see material loss.

- you begin calculating your opponents moves as you try and decipher their plans and threats. Thus, prophylaxis makes its appearance in your play both as a tool to prevent, or delay, your opponent's plans and as a weapon to further your own (you examine a line that looks good, but see your opponent has a move that wrecks the plan so you look for ways to prevent him from making that move).

- you don't spend every move trying to "solve" the position as though it were some kind of evolving puzzle. You know the main ideas and themes in your openings, and play is directed more at carrying out the typical plans that go with it. Often moves are played because experience in the position has taught you the move is good - no calculation necessary.

- otherwise there is an interplay between strategy and tactics where you look for short-term tactics to further long term strategic goals. This may be as elementary as using tactical means to compel your opponent to simplify the position where your material gain is most felt, and your opponent has less likelihood of creating counter-chances through complications.

So sure, calculation plays a role but its not the simple brute force process many seem to imply that is. There is much more to improving your play than aiming to become some kind of human calculator.

.

A 1800 knows the difference. He's been there.

A 1300 doesn't know the difference. Yet.

experience. situational experience like seeing a position and knowing it well, calmness/ confidence. 

After that there is no difference between ratings because anyone can be creative. 

My rating would be far below 1300, but I can say for sure that tactical vision and calculating ability are far from being the main differences. If a lower rated player like myself were trying to improve, the only thing we would ever do is hone our tactics until we were on par with higher rated players. Our real problem is not being able to recognize the importance of positional play. This is why coaches tell their students to open up the position and play tactically against stronger opponents, as opposed to trying to play positionally and getting crushed by sheer experience.

That sentence kinda doesn't make sense.

Coaches recommend seeking out stronger opponents because you will learn more from their play than you will from one of equal or lower rating.

Coaches recommend playing for open positions because its easier to hang material or lose to simple tactical shots than it is in closed positions; the idea is to encourage you to learn elementary tactics and the importance of safety through experience and post-game analysis.

I think you are mixing two ideas together to make a soup that doesn't quite smell right.