Difference between 1600 and 2000 rated players

What does it mean if my tac tic rating is 1600

A 2000 elo is stronger in tactics and endgame, even if 1600 survive the opening and middlegame, it always come down who can play a better endgame. A player who is 2000 elo can calculate better than a 1600 elo, calculating and assessing a position is important skill in a player and player who is 1600  lack those skills. 

It might be of interest to look at How to Be a Class A Player and How to Become a Candidate Master, both by Alex Dunne (about three decades ago).

1600 you can just sit and wait for him to make a mistake and beat himself, 2000 you have to beat him.

This thread is 4 years old lol

I am an over 2000 player in correspondece (1700 live standard, 1300 blitz)...

however I do devote  a lot of time to analysis and calculation and often take 2- 3 days to decide upon a move while my lower rated opponets mainly play the move immediately or on the same day

I think the best method for answering the OP's question is not to look at games where 1600s take on 2000s, but to see how a game of chess is typically decided between equals at the 1600 level and compare that to how games are usually decided between equals at the 2000 level.

And my sense is the most important difference is that more of the 2000-level games will be decided by positional struggles, and the vast majority of games at the 1600-level will be decided by tactics that win material which can be converted into a win without much high-level technique  (for instance, an extra healthy pawn with no compensation for the opponent).

So I think the real difference between 1600s and 2000s comes down to consistency in tactics, which is a result of a more disciplined thought process which checks for possible errors more reliably and efficiently.

I am not a good player, and I don't think I can say this. But still, let me tell you what I feel. I have been reading this and I think it is important to quote it. http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-geometry-of-expertise

Just read it. Weak and average players, according to the article, tend to focus on the last move they just playes. Look, starting with chess, you have to first learn the basics. Soon, you will become equipped enough to start trying out good tack-ticks, like pinning a minor piece to the king and attacking it with a pawn and so on. Your view, at this level of play, will just focus on what comes immediately next, and your focus will the the king all the time. But this slowly changes and you now become good enough to give-up short0-term views and go for long term ones. For example, you station a bishop in the b2 square, hoping that when you start attacking the castled king side of your opponent with your queen, bishop and night, during the mid game, the bishop previously stationed at the b2 square may prove to be useful. So you tend to take a lot of "long term precautions" as a grandmaster.

now as times goes on, you tend to become well-versed in deciding which opening favors which position, and what hidden trick should you hold for a particular opening. Look, regardless of the game played, chess has 64 squires, 32 pieces (in the beginning), and well, unimaginable number of possibilities; so a particular opening played twice with slight variation, is still going to be quite similar in many parameters. So tracing the lines of the opening is going to lead you to familiar positions. So having played the position before, you might have had the feeling "I wish I had this piece here to defend me, or help me". All you have to do is note it down, and later, incorporate it in your playing style. And soon, when you play the same lines again, you will have the right pieces to aid your attack.

So to summarize, from 1200 to 1800, perhaps, we can quantify the improvement. After which, even quantifying the improvement will be impossible, because each player will start getting better at specific kind of strategical plays. For example (in music), Beethoven and Mozart are great; but they have different styles. And each great musicians after them had specific styles (which they might or might not change over their life). But for a music student, he will first have to master the music theory. So even in chess, the "master" is a guy who has mastered the little stuff, and has little experience in high level play. But a grandmaster, like music composers,  have their own ground. So their play is quite dependent on their past experiences (like the small example given above). Look grandmasters, don't play "perfect chess". No one can. Not even the reputed chess engines. They rather "compose positions" of their own; and let it evolve gradually until it becomes disastrous for the opponent.

In terms of chess understanding how is a 2500 different from a 2200?   The usual.chess games last 40 moves so what.does  the 2500 see in such a short series of moves?

A 1600 with good positional understanding can beat a 2000 on a good day.

He can make it hard by positionally outplaying the 2000 and then the 2000 will crack(he is not a grandmaster)

1600s statistically make erroneous moves 50% of the time in a game, 2000s do it approximately 7 times a game

If 1600 crush 2000, their ratings will be switched.

In 10 out of games, 2000 must get 9 win 1 loss to maintain his rating. 

If they have 1 win, 1 loss ratio, both will become 1800.

2000 players still blunder, they just do it less often.  I played this game a few moments ago and you can see the 1965 (as he was at the start of the game) blundered his Queen - he was under some pressure at that point but it was in no way an excuse!  I often find players at this level making significant mistakes.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/18232321953

FWIW I recently made the jump from 1600 to 1900+ and the key changes that I have made are:

1.  Using my time when I am up or level.  This is critical.  I used to spend my time thinking when I was in a difficult position, but that is a waste of time.  Use your time to make sure you do not get into a difficult position in the first place.  On move 14 I was struggling to find a good move, let alone the best move.  I thought for nearly 3 minutes on that move alone, discounting moves endlessly until I came across the correct one.  And I add, make sure you don't just find a good move, make sure you find the best move - every time ask yourself that.

2.  Playing no less than 10 minutes or 10+5.  Even that is often enough.  I used to play 3 minute chess!  You cannot think properly in 3 minute chess - there just is not enough time.  Just stop playing quick games and give yourself time to think.  Then you will make fewer mistakes and you will enjoy playing at a higher level.  When I grew up playing OTB, 30 minute chess was considered rapid play!

3.  Opening preparation.  In the game above I knew exactly how I wanted to play against his Scandinavian.  I understood the positional play exactly.  Unfortunately I have not yet done opening preparation for all lines.  I am still very uncertain as to what to do in a number of lines (pirc, french etc).  

4.  Tactical awareness.  I have been doing puzzle rush several times a week and have got to 26 in 5 minutes.  My tactical awareness is generally not good, I am more of a positional player, but I know much more than I used to.

But there is no magic bullet.  Different players have different weaknesses.  Improving your grade is about identifying your personal weaknesses and addressing those points.  

Finally, good luck to all of you!

I asked myself, where does chess strength came from? Indeed, it is very hard to quantify. But I think, I know where it is anchored. It is anchored on basic geometric shapes like in pawn formations. And because the pieces moves, there is a dynamic element to this pattern such as the discovered attack. A 1600 rated player can see these patterns in the present position visible at the board. But a 2000 rating can see these patterns in his mind in various future positions that are not visible at the board. 

that sounds strange. even an expert should be strong enough to hold down the fort the first ten moves if he is playing one of his pet lines.

its mostly based on1. deeply rooted intuitive pattern recognition and 2. much faster/deeper analysis of positioning once you get past 1.

intuition btw is not only being able to correctly evaluate a position but to very quickly be able to tell what piece placement the position demands 

I am not sure about intuition. When I look at chess, I look at it first in its objective mechanical form and to, as much as possible, devoid of any human-related traits, such as intuition. And whether, the game can be played devoid of human trains (such as intuition). Therefore, all these human traits (such as intuition etc) can be reduced or has an equivalent machine-like mechanical flow. And it can be described in the following:
1) Pattern recognition in the visible present position (pawn formations, piece mobility and coordination, opponent positional weaknesses matching which of your pieces to retain, piece freedom not being defensively tied)
2) Recursively apply item#1 above to each future position that you can imagine in your mind.

So I don't see where is intuition here, considering that all of the above is very mechanical, like adding a series of numbers. Perhaps, it is more of a habit. I reserve intuition for something entirely new which you haven't encountered before.

From 0 to 2200, it's a matter of who's better at tactics. Most of them know no or very little opening theory not to talk of proper analyses of middle game positions and it's very easy to get better at tactics.

Play puzzles everyday. Not that you should obsess yourself on puzzles, play few(like 50) per day. You just need to be consistent and also play and analyse every games mildly seeing great moves and misses. If you're young (Let's say less than 40 yrs old), you're going to get to 2200 in maximum and I mean maximum 3 years. Younger players realize this goal in 1 and a half years.