Rating Skill Differences
Sort:
Dark_Canyon
Jul 28, 2019
0
#1
What are some notable differences between 1000 and 1100 ranked players? In other words, what are 1100 ranked players good at that 1000 ranked players haven’t picked up?
it is hard to put a finger on
and i think we need to broaden the rating ranges
there is also the issue of players who are “stronger” than their “rating” or “weaker” than
my rapid rating on chess.com peaked at 1300 ish; i spent many months in upper 1200’s and then went on a very negative spiral that put me in the low 1100’s
part of what happened was an idiotic sense of entitlement- anyone lower rated should be easily crushed; so, i would try to force the issue and really press and would basically self destruct
i wasnt applying any of the thought processes or strategies i had been slowly developing over a few years
i was also running into the issue of 30 min rapid games being detrimental to my development- they were way too short; most of my leaps in progress were working with a coach and playing otb tournaments at classical time controls
so i was losing and a majority of games were lost because i flagged out- this would then trigger a tilt session and the badness would compound
———
the point is that i definitely feel my chess knowledge is much better at this current incarnation of 1100 rating than when i first crossed the threshold in the first place; my otb results indicate this as well as my performance has gotten better each year;
rapid time controls do little more than letting me try to get a decent and stable position out of an opening
good luck if the game reaches an endgame where i would really like another 60 minutes to navigate the waters rather than the 2 minutes i have left in my 30 min games
——-
the differences are very subtle
a 1200 veteran has a little more experience in each phase of the game
than a 800
a little more access with patterns
but he is not immune to random acts of blundering
in fact it could be said that the main difference is that each rating barrier blunders a little less catastrophically
nevertheless, it seems that players within a couple of hundred rating points can have a competitive game
——
i dont know if this even helps with the question
but a player is not a fixed and static rating; i think a better appraisal is to find one’s lowest level of performance which can get no lower and strive to raise this level as a matter of improvement
raise the level of your worst days of chess and close the gap between your worst and best levels
——
i am sorry as i thin i just made things more confusing
and i think we need to broaden the rating ranges
there is also the issue of players who are “stronger” than their “rating” or “weaker” than
my rapid rating on chess.com peaked at 1300 ish; i spent many months in upper 1200’s and then went on a very negative spiral that put me in the low 1100’s
part of what happened was an idiotic sense of entitlement- anyone lower rated should be easily crushed; so, i would try to force the issue and really press and would basically self destruct
i wasnt applying any of the thought processes or strategies i had been slowly developing over a few years
i was also running into the issue of 30 min rapid games being detrimental to my development- they were way too short; most of my leaps in progress were working with a coach and playing otb tournaments at classical time controls
so i was losing and a majority of games were lost because i flagged out- this would then trigger a tilt session and the badness would compound
———
the point is that i definitely feel my chess knowledge is much better at this current incarnation of 1100 rating than when i first crossed the threshold in the first place; my otb results indicate this as well as my performance has gotten better each year;
rapid time controls do little more than letting me try to get a decent and stable position out of an opening
good luck if the game reaches an endgame where i would really like another 60 minutes to navigate the waters rather than the 2 minutes i have left in my 30 min games
——-
the differences are very subtle
a 1200 veteran has a little more experience in each phase of the game
than a 800
a little more access with patterns
but he is not immune to random acts of blundering
in fact it could be said that the main difference is that each rating barrier blunders a little less catastrophically
nevertheless, it seems that players within a couple of hundred rating points can have a competitive game
——
i dont know if this even helps with the question
but a player is not a fixed and static rating; i think a better appraisal is to find one’s lowest level of performance which can get no lower and strive to raise this level as a matter of improvement
raise the level of your worst days of chess and close the gap between your worst and best levels
——
i am sorry as i thin i just made things more confusing
The rule of thumb is that a player rated 100 points higher will win 75% of the games. At that level: 1100 vs 1000, it mostly boils down to a slight increase in chess knowlege, and a better chance at finding a weakness against the 1000 rated player.
As you go up the ratings scale, it becomes a matter of who knows and applies the principles of chess better. Higher yet, and positional knowlege becomes a huge deciding factor. At the highest levels, chess theory becomes a huge factor. -This presumes a chess player can solve level appropriate tactics at each ratings level, and has level appropriate opening knowlege.
