1600 vs 1700 vs 1800 vs 1900 vs 2000

Sort:
B1ZMARK2

this may have been posted a few times before,

what do you guys think is the difference between these 5 ratings, from advanced to (decidedly) experts?

specifically in bullet because that's what I play the most

sndeww

in bullet it's who moves faster lol

B1ZMARK2

from my POV higher ratings are generally more consistent, e.g. an 1800 generally always plays around that level where as a 1600 may sometimes play 1800 and sometimes play 1400

B1ZMARK2
B1ZMARK wrote:

in bullet it's who moves faster lol

Objection, your honor! Lol I tend to move faster than most 1800s but skill wise I can't think that fast

sndeww

if i play bullet sporadically and not too often I can move really fast.

 

B1ZMARK2

you averaged under a second a move and somehow didn't die. what

sndeww

she missed 19.Qd5+ lol

B1ZMARK2

average 2200 missing forks

Platypus

for bullet the higher rated people move same speed as 1100s but they dont blunder as much

Puzzle_Blogueur25
B1ZMARK a écrit :

she missed 19.Qd5+ lol

Sure

MegaCharizardLeo

I'm stuck at 1900

Puzzle_Blogueur25

1581 i cant jump to 1600

Meddard

A long time ago I played bullet seriously, I didn't play anybody below 2200 and vs 2200s I could count on winning on time. So I can't say about the differences between lower ratings but I'd say that up to 2200 it's mostly about speed.

Beyond speed you need fast eye for tactics and mating patterns, a bit of that "killer instinct" to wreck through positions and be able to make sacs.

Then you need "bullet-tricks", which means dumb moves (especially checks) to flag the opponent and predicting the opponent's premove and foiling it to flag the opponent and in it's highest form predicting that your opponent will try to foil your premove and move to counter that instead of the expected premove.

In "serious" bullet play unrated warm up games, listen to intense music (Darude's Sandstorm was my favourite) to keep you pumped and in the rhythm.

This all being said, I don't play bullet anymore, because let's face it, it's a waste of exciting positions that I would love to consider and find the best move in. 

 

B1ZMARK2
chessPlatypus01 wrote:

for bullet the higher rated people move same speed as 1100s but they dont blunder as much

ok son

B1ZMARK2
Meddard wrote:

A long time ago I played bullet seriously, I didn't play anybody below 2200 and vs 2200s I could count on winning on time. So I can't say about the differences between lower ratings but I'd say that up to 2200 it's mostly about speed.

Beyond speed you need fast eye for tactics and mating patterns, a bit of that "killer instinct" to wreck through positions and be able to make sacs.

Then you need "bullet-tricks", which means dumb moves (especially checks) to flag the opponent and predicting the opponent's premove and foiling it to flag the opponent and in it's highest form predicting that your opponent will try to foil your premove and move to counter that instead of the expected premove.

In "serious" bullet play unrated warm up games, listen to intense music (Darude's Sandstorm was my favourite) to keep you pumped and in the rhythm.

This all being said, I don't play bullet anymore, because let's face it, it's a waste of exciting positions that I would love to consider and find the best move in. 

 

lol half my games

B1ZMARK2

*cough cough* 30 second

llama47

Players who are 100 points above are, obviously, not dramatically better.

The average player tends to be somewhat well rounded too.

So that means the typical difference between 1600 and 1700 is the same as the difference between 1900 and 2000... the higher rated player sees a little more tactics, is aware of a little more positional ideas, knows openings a little better, etc.

HIsmile8

Gh