Where are the voices of highly rated people?

As I read forums, I see lots of people asking for good advice, yet the most is said by people with a rating of around 900-1200. The highest being 1400 every now and then.

Where are the 1800+'s?

Playing Chess I guess.

But really, I have a question, why are you low rated players passing yourselves off as decent guides to other low rated players?

Because we know all the correct theory, but mess up when we actually play a game.

I believe the OP is asking: "Why are sub-1800 players offering advice?"

 

Because I see so many people that think they know everything because they can beat the lowly 1100 player and they still don't know jack!

 

I deal with it every Tuesday night at the club.  I'm 2100 (over the board) and many of these people are 1600 to 1800 and they think they know everything.  There's one kid, he's about 1850, that has horrible table manners, and thinks he's so great because he can get a lucky win with his Dragon, and then comes up against me, plays 1.e4, and tries to throw the kitchen sink at me, just to start dropping pawns and in something like 10 or 11 tournament games he's played against me, he has 3 draws, and not a single victory!

 

What 1700s have that 1100s don't have are "buzz words".  They hear these buzz words, and think they are a religion.  For example, "Bishop Pair", and just automatically assume that all positions where the player with the Bishop pair isn't down material, the player with the Bishop Pair has the advantage.  Just one example of many in terms of flawed players thinking they know what Kasparov knows!

They know better than to get on the chess.com forums

hey BP could give some answers but he wouldnt

I reply to forums and give advice fairly regularly. So do several other titled players. However, it's both frustrating and probably useless to the OP when my answer gets drowned in 20 bad answers and 40 replies that are just trolling.

I see IM pfren and IM poucin commenting regularly here on the forums.  They're highly rated.  Also FM Chuddog.  ThrillerFan, Bobby Talparov, FaceCrusher, and others that I can't remember are also very helpful.

Don't overlook the fact that there are way more low rated players than high rated players. You would naturally expect to see far more answers from low rated players even if everybody were equally active on the forums. 

I always enjoy reading advice of stronger players, but the variety there is as large as it is among amateurs (and trolls?). One issue with the advice from higher-rated (especially titled) players is that you will be hard-pressed to find one that achieved his/her level without having starting as a child or without having a large period of time to which they could devote to chess (tournaments, studying, and coaching). Many folks in the forums, especially lower-rated players, seeking advice are not in a position to play 10-12 tournaments per year or spend 3 hours with a stronger player or engine to analyze all of their mistakes, so we ask for advice that is reasonably efficient and practical, knowing that time and age are already working hard against us. This is how de la Maza's book became a cult classic. He spoke to the myriads of talentless adults and gave us hope for some improvement. Meanwhile, other authors either tell us to just enjoy and appreciate chess or to devote at least 4 hours a day to study and play in 1-2 weekend tournaments each month while having a stronger player or coach go over each of our games.

Why is so much hate on lower rated players? :)

There are underlining concept that low rated players should not talk :)

You are describing me quite perfectly. My ratings here and probably also my fide rating are much higher than yours, yet from reading your posts on this forum it seems like you know a lot more about chess than I do.

And since I do not understand much about chess,  I also do not like to give advice. 

 

I am not a high rated 1800 players, but I am a FM

I'm rated 2000 OTB, and I appreciate when titled players comment, even to beginner type questions, so please stay active  even when the OP ignores you, others who are just reading topics are learning.

But also I wanted to say, yes, there are often a LOT of bad answers in topics. I'm sure I've given some myself. So if you're a new player, and you're looking for advice, don't just agree with what you want to hear! If there are two posters, and one is 1 or 2 hundred points higher, maybe just ignore the ratings and accept the advice equally, but if one of them is 500 or 1000 points higher, just ignore the lower rated guy

Yes, he sold books on a marketing gimmick, and it worked because people don't like the truth, which is not just in chess, but the truth is it takes a lot of time and effort to be good at anything.

De la Mesa studied all aspects of the game. However for years he neglected tactics, so it's no surprise focusing on tactics gave him rapid improvement... but this is what any good player will tell you, i.e. study all aspects, not just 1 or 2 areas.

Yeah, admittedly I'm being a bit harsh by saying to ignore people, but really I see a lot of... inaccurate statements, so if an OP is seriously interested in improving, and really reaching out for advice, IMO the best bet is to just ignore people rated anywhere near themselves.

I once was going to analyze my OTB game with my opponent, when his coach walked by and told him never analyze with anyone below 2300 because they'll just tell you lots of wrong things lol  
In the end, the coach let us analyze, and even complimented me on some analysis, but again if a person is really interested in learning, I think the coach was correct.

1800 isn't nothing. When you actually get there (your best is 1784) then maybe you can voice that kind of opinion.

if a low rated player gives advice to another low rated player and the advice is sound, then what does it matter what his rating is?

plus if you want advice off a high rated player don't settle for anything less than a grandmaster.

I'd never heard of de la Maza before and just took a quick look at his book on amazon. What I gather is he tells weak (class E-C or so) players to focus on tactics and work hard on training and improving their tactical vision, more than other parts of the game. Honestly, for that level, that sounds reasonable. You can probably go all the way to Class A or even Expert just by avoiding making blunders and punishing your opponent's blunders. You need to know some basic openings (so you get a decent position to work with) and basic endgame technique (K+whatever vs K checkmates, how to convert an extra piece or exchange in the endgame, how to win a pawn-up pawn endgame...), but beyond that, tactics decide most games at that level.