Differences between 200-400-600-800?

Hello Chess.com!

Recently, I've become obsessed with understanding the difference between rating jumps at the beginner level. Personally, I didn't spend much time below 1000, but I feel that understanding what beginners think the difference is will help me provide better feedback on beginner posts.

In my personal opinion, I do feel that a majority of the more advanced players on the forums don't really understand the rating differences at the beginner level. Most people (myself included) above a certain rating threshold (for example, 1800) believe that the ratings of beginners are extremely unstable and that 400 is approximately the same skill level as 600.

I've seen a lot of posts about the differences in ratings below 1000, and generally, higher-level players summarize it as "blundering less and less", but after reading several beginner comments, it seems to me that there is more to it than that!

The Question of the Thread:

If you are a beginner (i.e. <1000), what do you perceive as the difference between ratings of 200 - 400 - 600 - 800

If you are an advanced player (i.e. >1800), do you think that the differences at the lower level are simply "blundering less"?

Please include your rating in your post, as it would be beneficial for others to comment on.

I'm slightly higher than 1000 rating.

I have no idea what the differences are specifically between those ratings. It's been 11 years since I was rated that low.

I just know that you simply get more consistent with spotting tactics and stuff as you go up - tactics, mainly, but that's obviously a given. 

So Im 1600 rapid 1748 blitz 1902 bullet rn so neither beginner nor advanced
when i started using chesscom i was 802 rapid and 650 blitz
personally from teaching (freinds and small streamers nothing paid) and watching people sub 800 play
100s-->400s have a heavy lack of board awarness and just dont see pieces and often forget what pieces are able to do they may also not really understand checkmate rules
400-600 is where they get the rules and understand pieces but are either just slow (in moving) or they have a hard time using the pieces to get the results the want they may also have started to try and learn an opening or not
600-800 typically actually know how to play chess can recognize some openings and can mate and can find tactics but just make many mistakes
800+ just make less mistakes and see a little more etc

@1
"If you are an advanced player (i.e. >1800), do you think that the differences at the lower level are simply "blundering less"?"
++ Yes, of course.

I was a 600 3 years ago. I'm 2100 now.

There's a few things that stand out as being most impactful in my journey from say, 600 to 1000.
1) Opening principles - having a general sense of direction with the purpose of the opening moves vs literally playing random moves with no real purpose.
2) Solving basic checkmates and tactics. This also helps with pattern recognition and board vision - which is a real problem sub 600.
3) This was immediately obvious during my rise from say 1000 to 1200, but watching the likes of John Bartholomew's climbing the rating ladder really helped me with regards to planning. Listening to his thought process and how it changes based on what he see's, etc - I saw a near immediate 100 point rating gain in the 3 days following a binge watch of that series.

But in a nutshell, it can be summarised as a lack of board vision and sense of direction - which is trained through tactics and learning plans, strategy, ideas etc.

Beginner here, 290 in rapid after a week

200s was pretty easy, opponents made serious blunders very often, often losing important pieces very early like the queen or rook or bishop.

300s still make blunders, but not as bad. I noticed 300-400 make more use of knights and bishops at the start, whereas 200s will use the pawns more at the start.

200-300s love to sacrifice pieces of equal value, and seem to try and rush the game, whereas a 400+ will be more cautious in trading.

Thats from what i noticed after a week. Also I haven't really studied or analyzed my games, just playing non-stop, and i still make heaps of careless blunders.

It all depends on their board vision: Some beginners notice small details in a position and some do not. Which details they notice, however, does not depend on their rating, but on their experience, which can alternate among different beginners. Consequently, in contrast to board vision, positional understanding, strategy, etc. are of secondary importance. In the beginner's section, the main goal is to form a basic understanding of the game.

I suspect that there's a distribution where lower rated players are all bad at everything, higher rated players are all good at everything and middle rated players have more variability where they might be ok at some things but bad at others.

One example being time, one 800 might lose lots of games on time and be capable of playing at a higher level if they played a longer time control, while another 800 might play poorly but quickly.

When two players rated below 400 or just above 400 play I can't tell whether they are playing bad on purpose or not. When 600s play I can see that they are trying but that they can't play a single game without several 1 move blunders. 800s are better tacticly, they can spot some tactical patterns and they blunder a lot less often than 600s. Their games can, but don't have to, look a lot more normal than games of 600s. 800-1000 is the rating at which I expect a player to begin to spot mates in 1 and mates in 2 when they appear in their games. Before that level players will regurarily miss mates in 1 and mates in 2. I think that 850 is the first milestone that I player reaches. Second one is 1000. Third is 1300. At 1300 players are definitely no longer beginners in my eyes. 800s are no longer pure beginners in my eyes.

I said this as an "advanced player",  as under OP's definition I am an advanced player.

Would you please elaborate?

Simply blundering less cannot be the sole reason for stagnation at a lower level. There are plenty of players with above-average tactics ratings (for their level) stuck at lower ratings despite their tactical vision.

This is the constant dilemma when lower-rated players ask for advice.

In general, a chess player (be it at any level) has their personal strengths and weaknesses, and I think that being able to "estimate" your rating based on a categorical rating, such as below, is a good way to identify those weaknesses and improve upon them.

Categories:

1. Tactical Vision

2. Opening Knowledge

3. Endgame Knowledge

4. Calculation Ability

5. Positional Knowledge

It is also important to not categorize yourself, as bias may play in a role, so its best to ask a preferably stronger player (or same level), to rate you.

I think that at the lower levels, the most difficult to develop are tactical vision and calculation while learning opening principles is not as difficult.

However, there are always outliers, which is where the problem occurs. Some beginners don't blunder 1-move or 2-move tactics, and really need to focus on improving their knowledge of opening principles.

Yes, because of their board vision. That's why I say that this is the decisive criteria that prevents the improvement of a beginner. Endgames, positional understanding, opening knowledge are all irrelevant compared to board vision and tactical intuition. It doesn't help if you memorize an opening 10 moves deep if you hang your queen and get mated 5 moves after that. And self-evaluation can be done by looking at where you can keep up with the competing players and where you cannot. The problem is not that the players don't know the opening rules, they just think that this or that move is probably better now because it looks active. The reason for that is simply that they have not then seen the continuation for the opponent in advance. But that only leads us back to the board vision.

I would say that anyone below the 1500 level is a beginner. How long does it take to get to this level? Exactly, only a few months if you study a bit. And I doubt that anyone who has only been playing the game for a few months is considered anything more than a beginner. Even I would actually still count myself among them. Being a beginner does not mean being bad, it just means that there are still thousands of unused opportunities to improve your game. Of all the knowledge there is about chess, I have barely uncovered a square meter. 

I agree that tactical vision is by far the most important of the categories, but it is important to grow each category in parallel. Obviously hanging 1 or 2 move tactics are game changers, but imagine this scenario:

Person A plays the London, is mostly solid, leaving little room for tactics, has enough tactical ability to not blunder 2 move tactics, and is rated 1000.

Person B has a 3000 puzzles rating on chess.com, but has never studied an opening and mostly plays random moves with no purpose until their opponent blunders a 2-move tactic. Also rated 1000

Who would win?

Person A, because they have a more balanced profile, so they would probably just be able to overpower the tactical player due to some sort of kingside attack (doesn't even have to be perfect moves), as the tactical player would not have developed properly or played against the London properly.

TLDR: Tactical vision is the most important, but up to an extent. After that, beginners cannot simply improve their board vision to grow in rating.

While I would not consider a 1400, a beginner, if a 1400 was considered a beginner, then you would need much more than just tactical vision to reach the rating of 1400.

TheNameofNames has a point.

Everyone except strong GMs have dozens of opportunities to make better moves in their games, especially if they play faster time controls. People improve at different rates. If you are 800 after 3 years of playing chess you are still a beginner. Beginner is determined by strength level. 1300s are much better than people who just start playing chess in every possible way. It is nonsense to put both of these people in the same cathegory. 

You have not understood the core message of my reply. In most sports and disciplines, a beginner or an expert is measured by how much he knows or can do. Two 1500s, for example, may have completely different areas of expertise, simply because they pick up different things over time. But if you have hardly studied anything or haven't worked through any books etc., then you are still a beginner. And that is also why the ratings of so many beginners differ and even fall over time because the only thing they improve in is board vision and tactical vision. That's not concrete knowledge. And if they don't play for 2 weeks, they lose hundreds of rating points because it takes practice to maintain this ability. If a master has not played for 5 years, he may no longer have any board vision, but he still has all the knowledge he has learned. So he'll be back in shape in two months at the latest. In the beginner's area, i.e. anything under 1500, board vision is basically all you need. That's why most beginners' understanding of chess is so fleeting. And if you don't have any concrete knowledge, how are you supposed to be anything but a beginner in the long run?