Difference between 1600 and 2000 rated players

Just some thoughts about what distinguishes players skills when they gain rating.

A player rated, say 800, will drop pieces on threatened squares and not always notice when opponent does so.

A 1200 will notice hanging pieces, and sees simple tactics.

A 1600 sees more than simple tactics, and has already decent positional understanding.

My question (especially to higher rated players) is: what distinguishes a 2000 from a 1600? A 2400 from a 2000? The steps 800 -> 1200 -> 1600 are huge, and I am just curious what huge steps there is for someone like me (maybe rated around 1600, don't know).

Does a 2400 player crush a 2000 as easily as a 1600 crushes a 1200? Is it as effortless win as it is for a 1600 rated player to play a 1200?

400 points... it's the difference between your own relative strength in blitz compared to your relative strength in turn-based.

I don't think you can think that way.

Somehow, I don't think a 1200 player would play well enough even given long time (a day) to think. The lack of positional understanding would manifest itself even then.

About 400p rating difference, according to ELO definition it should be a win for the better player with 90-95% probability (or smth). The question referred to the effort the better player has to put in to win the game.

Sometimes there is a lot of effort, sometimes it's an easy win. It depends, most of all because many people play better than their rating - especially if they rarely get to play in rated events and tournaments, but play chess frequently in the club, read some books, are proficient in some openings, etc.

But, assuming that both 1600 and 2000 ratings are objective measures (based on a similar number of games) - I'd say the main difference is the positional understanding. 1600 players rarely make outright blunders (where you can win by a very simple tactic) - but they usually play many suboptimal moves ("?!") - so for a 2000 player who has a better grasp of the "truth" of the position, it is usually easy to slowly improve the position and increase the advantage... of course, this will lead to some tactics, but tactics are merely a consequence of the former.

The other main difference is the endgame skill (in complicated endgames)

Of course, there is always some difference in tactical ability, but I think this is not the most important factor.

like a 900 to a 1500 in tactcs

is a 1600 to a 2100 in strategy

I don't think you can accurately generalize playing characteristics based on rating. A rating will give you a fairly accurate indication of a player's strength range. If I'm playing a 1500 he will be  likely to play in the 1300-1700 range. It doesn't tell me how good he is with tactics vs. positional play, how likely he is to blunder in time trouble, what openings he is going to play, etc.

Thank you all for your thoughts. I spoke to some people rated 2000-2100 the other day, and he basically said that:

- A 1600 can be about as tactically skilled as a 2000 (the latter knowing more standard motifs, but general calculating ability does not differ that much)

- A 2000 is better at calculating the "right" variant, and calculates it to a greater depth than a 1600 (and understands when to stop, and has a better gut feeling of how good the resulting variant is).

- Endgames. A 2000 has played a lot more and has more routine in many endgame types. This knowledge is used when exchanging pieces, to ensure the resulting endgame is favourable.

-  Piece coordination. A 2000 has a better feeling on how to place your pieces so they can cooperate better.

About the difference between a 2500-2600 and a 2000.. one of the people I spoke with said that he had been in a tournament with several IM and GM. He said that his score against the 2500+ people was that (on average) by move 9 he realized he was going to drop an exchange or more...

Hi Tapani!

I know you personally, although not closely. My impression is that you are a HIGHLY intelligent person, and you´ve proven this fact professionally. Strange as it may seem, I think this fact can be a hinderance to your chess improvement rating-wise. Looking at your Tactics Trainer rating for instance, you are clearly a stronger player than me tactically. But I´m 300 points higher rated than you in OTB chess. Very intelligent people sometimes forget practical aspects of the game, time management, the ability to make a practical decision, going by instinct rather than objectivity, etc. My suggestion to you is to analyze your thought patterns, the psychological aspects of chess. Is it the fact that youre a perfectionist for instance? Perfectionism can be a hinderance in practical chess, but a strength in analysis. Do you buckle under pressure? Etc, etc.

I´m very surprised youre rating is not higher than mine. I think it´s just a mental block. You think your strength is 1600, why not think it´s 1800?

Just go psychological for a change, theoretical wisdom differs from practical wisdom, and in the end chess is a practical game.

Yours truly

Sami

I would say the rating itself (even after hundreds games) doesn`t say much about a player`s strength. Let us look at me and a 2450+ rated player (I won`t name him).

My today`s rating is 2032 after 586 finished games which is quite a lot. But am I a 2000? No, I am not. Since almost all my games were played in open tournaments I didn`t pick my opponents. When you look at my last 3 months here you will see my average opponent rating was 1649 (win) / 1999 (lose)/ 1861 (draw). Consequently, my real Chess.com rating is about 1850 which is nearly 200 less than 2032.

And the 2450+ (250+ finished games)? 1649 (win) / 2027 (lose). His real rating is about the same as mine which is more than 600 less than the rating he has got.

I believe the above shows it isn`t that much important what a rating a player`s got but the way he got it. Consequently, we can`t speak of differences between a 1600 (possibly with a real rating about 1800), 2000+ (myself with a real rating about 1850), and 2400+ (with a real rating about 1850).

Yesterday I had the great fortune (or misfortune) to play against 2 1400s in an otb tournament and i'm 1900.  The first 1400 played extremely conservatively (the london) and I didnt get anything until the endgame( which was an equal queen endgame, but I forced a queen trade at the right time when the pawn structure was favorable.  The second game i played another 1400 and he played a dynamic line in the semi-slav and got ripped by tactics.  

Basically, the point is that everyone plays differently and a weak point for one person will be different from the next.  However, to be a higher rated player you need to be able to handle any situation over the board.

I'm no expert in chess, but to answer your question, the difference in any level is their ability to see more in a given position.  Familiar tactics, combinations, threats.  When to exchange, how to get a better position, etc...  Don't forget the basic principles that are helpful in the openings.

So, yes higher rated 200+ beats the lower level 95% of the time!

Thank you for the added comments.

One more thing on how 2000 players differ from 1600 is consistency. I wonder if that is not the most important difference. Afaik, a 2000 almost never do really bad blunders. Inaccuracies, aplenty, but the real howlers are not there anymore. As a 1600 player -- I can assure you that at least this 1600 player can frequently drop pieces to simplish tactics in tournament games. Dropped my queen against a 1500 rated kid today... :-(

Sami, did not notice your input until now -- thank you for the encouraging words. Guess your profession shines through :-)

My post was not a post of frustration, rather curiosity. Having seen a beginners play, and realizing how much there is missing from their game -- I just wondered if a 2000 rated player would think and feel the same seeing me play :-) 

Oh, and there are reasons for me to asess myself as 1600 -- my Swedish rating is 1566, FIDE ~1690 and Taiwan rating ~1750 or so. It all averages somewhere high 1600s. Guess trying to be objective and quantifiable even about my own performance is a part of my training. For the good and the bad.

This is a really interesting thread.

I was thinking that the difference between a 1600 and a 1800, and a 1800 and a 2000 (let's do 200 points gaps to make it easier to analyse) might eventually come down, in a real game, to only a couple of moves. But these move becomes decisive.

If I play against a weaker player, I don't expect to outplay him every single move and not even every other move. I just keep playing normally, and he will probably do a couple of positional mistakes that will end up costing him the game.

I believe this is more and more true the higher the rating. In chess 1 bad moves nullifies 40 good ones. The higher the rating, the better the tecnique, thus only a small isolated error will be impossible to recover.

If a 2000 goes against a 1600 I don't think he should expect to beat him right away, effortlessly in the middlegame - altough this might of course happens. If the 1600 plays solid, how does the 2000 beat him? I think it might come down to a simple strategical plus, such as trading down to a rook ending where the 2000 has the more active rook and he knows it's winning. It's probably about the consistency of being able to do that, winning positionally in the endgame, rather than defeating him in a flashy way.

Well it depends.. i wouldnt say that the 2000 player is necessarily  the better positional player, it could be still tactics, just thinking more accuratly and deeper. Yes it could be strategy, but my guess is sound strategy and sound positional chess starts with strong expert or beginning master level.

but you cant obviously not generalize there is obvious always exceptions but i think sounds correct strategy and positional chess you need to be strong expert or beginning master level.

I would say this is true for players of similar level, especially titled players because they all know pretty much all the patterns and positional themes.

But there sure is a difference in positional understanding between a 1600 and a 2000; not just calculation, even the ability to evaluate a position must be different.

I would like some comments on my idea that in a practical game the difference in hundreds of rating points can be seen only in a few key moves.

75%*

lol tapani now that you are a 2200 can you tell us?

lol VDjStlin...good question i want to know too!

The online ratings here are a joke. The blitz/standard ratings are more in line with OTB ratings.

Regardless, I found this a good article on the topic of this thread:
http://www.chess.com/article/view/0---2000-a-roadmap-of-chess-knowledge