1700 to 1800 ELO , how to beat ??
Sort:
could I get some tips on the way 1700s players think and play? what should I study at this rating?
1500s and 1600s were abit similar except the 1600s had alittle less blunder and know more theory.
my main openings are caro, vienna and alapin
is it about time I change any opening or I'm good to go with these until 2000?
thanks!
they're not that different from 1600s.
You do not need to change your openings. You may expand your repertoire if you like, but it's not necessary to compete against 1700s.
1700s, like 1600s, need good understanding of their opening choice and the ideas behind it, but they do not need to know every cutting edge theory. They need a good grasp of endgame fundamentals, know when they should play for a draw or try to win during endgames.
But the most important thing, in my opinion, is still tactics. A lot of games can still be won or lost due to tactical miscalculations. Both you and your opponent are likely seeing the same tactic, but not calculating the same possibilities. One of you may still miss something in the move order, or a defensive resource that refutes the tactic. The reason why they tend to be a bit sharper in tactics than 1600s is that they tend to start thinking just as hard on how their opponents can refute certain moves in the tactic, and deduce if they can find a continuation, change the move order, or not go for the tactic at all. A 1600 may also be thinking about these, but they still spend more time thinking on how their moves would work and not a 50/50 between both sides.
So yeah, pretty much do everything you did at the 1600s but better.
As for when you do need to start changing the way you think about what's important would be around 1800 to 1900s. This is because decisive results begin to come from smaller and smaller positional mistakes. Sure, a wild tactical blunder still happens every now and then, but not enough to rely on to stay competitive against them and maintain/climb your rating. What's important now is making a long term or short term plan based on a ladder of priorities in the given position. A 1700 may see the same plans as an 1800-1900 do, especially short term ones, but the 1800-1900 will be able to explain which of the plans are better in the long run.
Archon_Fulminology wrote:
they're not that different from 1600s.
You do not need to change your openings. You may expand your repertoire if you like, but it's not necessary to compete against 1700s.
1700s, like 1600s, need good understanding of their opening choice and the ideas behind it, but they do not need to know every cutting edge theory. They need a good grasp of endgame fundamentals, know when they should play for a draw or try to win during endgames.
But the most important thing, in my opinion, is still tactics. A lot of games can still be won or lost due to tactical miscalculations. Both you and your opponent are likely seeing the same tactic, but not calculating the same possibilities. One of you may still miss something in the move order, or a defensive resource that refutes the tactic. The reason why they tend to be a bit sharper in tactics than 1600s is that they tend to start thinking just as hard on how their opponents can refute certain moves in the tactic, and deduce if they can find a continuation, change the move order, or not go for the tactic at all. A 1600 may also be thinking about these, but they still spend more time thinking on how their moves would work and not a 50/50 between both sides.
So yeah, pretty much do everything you did at the 1600s but better.
As for when you do need to start changing the way you think about what's important would be around 1800 to 1900s. This is because decisive results begin to come from smaller and smaller positional mistakes. Sure, a wild tactical blunder still happens every now and then, but not enough to rely on to stay competitive against them and maintain/climb your rating. What's important now is making a long term or short term plan based on a ladder of priorities in the given position. A 1700 may see the same plans as an 1800-1900 do, especially short term ones, but the 1800-1900 will be able to explain which of the plans are better in the long run.
I really appreciate you taking the time to write this.
i will keep on with my main openings and try to expand on them, 1700s seem to know my openings better and im unfamiliar with some of the responses i get, which is good and means i have a chance to cover my weaknesses as i climb to 1800.
ill keep on with the puzzles and begin studying endgames , based on my insights I loss most of my games during the endgame phase and the higher elo player would be even better than previous ones when it comes to that.
Ohh
Good Positional Chess, Planning & Strategy Books for Beginners and Beyond...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/introduction-to-positional-chess-planning-strategy
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell
