How to get from 1300-1500 in Rapid

katerinah337

Hello chess friends. I would like to ask what is the difference between a 1300 chess player and 1400 or 1500. I got from 1000-1300 just by doing Tactics and watching lessons here. But is there something else? Should I start consider something else than Tactics and lessons?

heavy1234

I would like to help but for me only difference is bellow 2000 and above 2000, meaning above 2000 are serious chess players, and bellow are more average, also your rating depense on how often you play, what kind of players you meet, example: on lichess my rating is 1700, and here 1300. I think it say it all.

nklristic
katerinah337 wrote:

Hello chess friends. I would like to ask what is the difference between a 1300 chess player and 1400 or 1500. I got from 1000-1300 just by doing Tactics and watching lessons here. But is there something else? Should I start consider something else than Tactics and lessons?

It all depends but 1 500 is somewhat better than 1 300 at least in some things. In my case, I am a bit better at endgames than when I was 1 300 (still pretty bad if compared to serious players but I win many games in the endgame, more than I lose). I am probably a bit better at openings (I still didn't memorize anything but by simply playing games and analyzing them, I know a bit more than a few months ago). I am around the same level at tactics as I was before. 

Perhaps I can "read" positions a little better as well.

It depends on the person, someone will go from 1 300 to 1 500 by simply being better at tactics. Someone will be better at endgames, etc. But one thing is for sure, 1 500 is better than 1 300 rated player at least in some aspects and that is making the difference in their rating.

katerinah337
Uživatel nklristic napsal:
katerinah337 wrote:

Hello chess friends. I would like to ask what is the difference between a 1300 chess player and 1400 or 1500. I got from 1000-1300 just by doing Tactics and watching lessons here. But is there something else? Should I start consider something else than Tactics and lessons?

It all depends but 1 500 is somewhat better than 1 300 at least in some things. In my case, I am a bit better at endgames than when I was 1 300 (still pretty bad if compared to serious players but I win many games in the endgame, more than I lose). I am probably a bit better at openings (I still didn't memorize anything but by simply playing games and analyzing them, I know a bit more than a few months ago). I am around the same level at tactics as I was before. 

Perhaps I can "read" positions a little better as well.

It depends on the person, someone will go from 1 300 to 1 500 by simply being better at tactics. Someone will be better at endgames, etc. But one thing is for sure, 1 500 is better than 1 300 rated player at least in some aspects and that is making the difference in their rating.

Thank you for nice and well describing comment. And yes, the position thinking was one of the things I was thinking about too. 

nklristic

You're welcome. happy.png As for what to consider... Well, I hope you are analyzing your games. That is very important and just by looking at your games without and with the engine you will learn something for sure. 

katerinah337
Uživatel nklristic napsal:

You're welcome.  As for what to consider... Well, I hope you are analyzing your games. That is very important and just by looking at your games without and with the engine you will learn something for sure. 

I am analyzing my games, I enjoy it. I would like to analyze better so I hope just practicing it helps. Also I am playing long time controls (1 hour) to have time to think when I have no idea what to do.

nklristic

Then you are doing a lot of good things. Well done. happy.png

There are other ideas which can help you improve. Some of those I tried, some I still haven't tried. For instance, you might want to search youtube for openings you play (Hanging Pawns channel have good videos on openings). That way you are not really memorizing but you will get some superficial knowledge. You can start considering that if you wish.

Other thing (I still didn't do it) is analyzing master games, especially in openings you play. The point is not to learn openings that way, but to see some middlegame positions that can arise from that opening, maybe even some tactical motifs that can occur. Something you will not understand but something you can figure out, and by doing that you will improve somewhat in those variations.

Then there are books, etc... There are many ways to improve, but it all requires a lot of time and effort.

katerinah337
Uživatel nklristic napsal:

Then you are doing a lot of good things. Well done.

There are other ideas which can help you improve. Some of those I tried, some I still haven't tried. For instance, you might want to search youtube for openings you play (Hanging Pawns channel have good videos on openings). That way you are not really memorizing but you will get some superficial knowledge. You can start considering that if you wish.

Other thing (I still didn't do it) is analyzing master games, especially in openings you play. The point is not to learn openings that way, but to see some middlegame positions that can arise from that opening, maybe even some tactical motifs that can occur. Something you will not understand but something you can figure out, and by doing that you will improve somewhat in those variations.

Then there are books, etc... There are many ways to improve, but it all requires a lot of time and effort.

Yeah, I found "Modern chess openings" book in pdf, I enjoyed study openings, I know it is not neccesary but I just memorized some lines. However thank you for your ideas. I did not study masters games too, but I had a look at them to see how good chess looks like, it was something like art to me. Also I am doing puzzles to learn how to calculate better. And I have 5 lessons here a week. But I was wondering about that positional thinking... sometimes I just know (feel) I have better position or worse position, but sometimes I cannot really say... so I hope analysis can help to fix this. However, thank you for your advices and telling me I am doing it right, I will just continue with this and results will hopefully come. I feel like I can get to 1400, but I was really wondering about 1500 as I heard it is intermediate player already... We will see, thank you very much again and have a good luck in chess in the future

nklristic

You're welcome, and thank you for the wishes. 

kartikeya_tiwari
katerinah337 wrote:

Hello chess friends. I would like to ask what is the difference between a 1300 chess player and 1400 or 1500. I got from 1000-1300 just by doing Tactics and watching lessons here. But is there something else? Should I start consider something else than Tactics and lessons?

I am going to give a bit of a detailed answer. I play slower time controls too and since it's harder to find games for them i use a wider rating pool for them to get a quick match so i have noticed a few differenced between a 1400 player and a 1600 player  
Ok so, there are two very big ones i can tell you from my experience

1. 1300-1400 players make their initial moves very quickly even in slow chess.  I cannot emphasize it enough, the opening is so, so important. I have noticed that players around 1400 tend to make their moves very quickly at the start and even in the middlegame. I am not talking about opening preparation but even in positions which are not in their prep.  I think one should be more than happy to take even 10-15 mins in a 60 minute game thinking about one move in the opening if they think that it has a chance of giving them an advantage.   Very often 1300-1400 players end up with way worse positions in the middlegame(not tactically, the material is often even) when they could have avoided it if they thought about their moves at the start

2. One HUGE difference is the number of "Odd moves" which they make. I am not talking about blunders but rather just moves which are inaccurate BUT also look very odd so it makes you think that there "must" be a way to punish it. The inaccuracies of 1600 players are often subtle(to me atleast) so there isn't enough of a chance for me to see it.
For example, in one of my games, a 1600 player made an inaccuracy where he should have developed his knight instead of opening the position up but my king was in the center and he was castled so i really could not spot it in game... I had a way to balance his counter attack but it didn't feel like an "odd" move to me during the game

But a 1300-1400 player is more likely to play an "odd" move, like play Nh5 or something, or randomly relocate the knight back to it's home square for no great reason or to push the pawns in front of his king.  It's also an inaccuracy but i am much more likely to "spot" it since it screams out as an "odd" move.

Sorry for the lengthy answer but those are the biggest differences i could think of 


katerinah337
Uživatel kartikeya_tiwari napsal:
katerinah337 wrote:

Hello chess friends. I would like to ask what is the difference between a 1300 chess player and 1400 or 1500. I got from 1000-1300 just by doing Tactics and watching lessons here. But is there something else? Should I start consider something else than Tactics and lessons?

I am going to give a bit of a detailed answer. I play slower time controls too and since it's harder to find games for them i use a wider rating pool for them to get a quick match so i have noticed a few differenced between a 1400 player and a 1600 player  
Ok so, there are two very big ones i can tell you from my experience

1. 1300-1400 players make their initial moves very quickly even in slow chess.  I cannot emphasize it enough, the opening is so, so important. I have noticed that players around 1400 tend to make their moves very quickly at the start and even in the middlegame. I am not talking about opening preparation but even in positions which are not in their prep.  I think one should be more than happy to take even 10-15 mins in a 60 minute game thinking about one move in the opening if they think that it has a chance of giving them an advantage.   Very often 1300-1400 players end up with way worse positions in the middlegame(not tactically, the material is often even) when they could have avoided it if they thought about their moves at the start

2. One HUGE difference is the number of "Odd moves" which they make. I am not talking about blunders but rather just moves which are inaccurate BUT also look very odd so it makes you think that there "must" be a way to punish it. The inaccuracies of 1600 players are often subtle(to me atleast) so there isn't enough of a chance for me to see it.
For example, in one of my games, a 1600 player made an inaccuracy where he should have developed his knight instead of opening the position up but my king was in the center and he was castled so i really could not spot it in game... I had a way to balance his counter attack but it didn't feel like an "odd" move to me during the game

But a 1300-1400 player is more likely to play an "odd" move, like play Nh5 or something, or randomly relocate the knight back to it's home square for no great reason or to push the pawns in front of his king.  It's also an inaccuracy but i am much more likely to "spot" it since it screams out as an "odd" move.

Sorry for the lengthy answer but those are the biggest differences i could think of 


Great, thanks! And do not be sorry for that length of the text, I even appreciate it because these opinions of others can be useful.Good luck to future

kartikeya_tiwari

Happy to help happy.png

MarkGrubb

I agree with positional assessment and planning. These are skills that might differentiate a 1300 and 1500. For example, avoiding a pawn exchange and keeping it closed because you are behind in development, playing on the side where you have more space, trading off pieces to weaken a key square, using your pawns to limit the activity of your opponets best pieces, constraining counterplay by attacking a target while improving your pieces. A 1500 might be thinking more strategically about what advantages in the position favour them and then how to play that position in practice. I'll also add being more composed under pressure and more patient while converting an advantage - not pushing too hard.

BlindThief

I would say as advice to that level, follow the Rules of Openings. Beyond that, look at and do tactical puzzles.

When looking at openings, don’t try rote memorizations of lines. Instead remember the general idea. And I would not look at opening beyond those you struggle with (example, look at mainline kings gambit if you tend to lose a lot of games to it). Finally, look over your loses with a computer. You can message me if you’d like me to review a game or two.

Ryumoreev

Keep practicing and trying to improve. 👍

Chessguy149

Iḿ not qualified, but in my opinion, once you get to the 1400 level, openings become a lot more important. Don´t play dumb gambits like the stafford or the tennison, and instead play solid openings like the italian game or the giuoco piano. I, personally, play the queens gambit as white and the petrov as black.

Moonwarrior_1

I think from this point, opens become slightly more important. People won’t make blunders in the opening unless it’s a mouse click, the biggest way to advance is to have a good strategy in the middle game as well as getting tons of practice in the end game. I find that if I can get to the end game I tend to play better then my opponents.

Moonwarrior_1

I like the Vienna as white and I’m starting to dive Into the Sicilian as black but for now I would just find a solid opening such as the French, as I know at the 1300-1500 range people hate the French defense.

DogLover4Ever

happy.png Thanks! I'm doing all these things!

katerinah337

Thanks all for ideas. I will try them all. I wish you all chess achievments and get to your goals as soon as possible