Difference between 1600, 1800, and 2000 ratings

What's the difference between the skill levels?

200 points.

From what I've read, 1600s still drop pieces.  !800s don't drop pieces but since up until recently they could depend on their opponents making errors their planning is not yet well developed.  2000s don't drop pieces and they can outplan their opponents.  I still drop pieces and I don't plan well either so no, I don't know how you get from one level to another.

^ I very much agree with what baddogno said. I'm probably an 1800 player and I've been playing a bunch of otb games lately for my college mostly against players rated 1550-1650. I don't really have to do much but sit pretty and watch my opponent hurt himself. Against 1800 players its more of a struggle to see who has a better board control and positioning.

I haven't played many 2000's so I can't stereotype them as I have other ratings.

Well a 2000 rating is more skillful than a 1600 rating..I hope that answers your question.

Hi caughtupinthemoment--there's no specific difference, but at higher levels there's more in-depth knowledge of the openings and better strategic planning.  Players look further ahead, they don't make as many simple errors, and they have better understanding of advanced tactics like zugzwang or triangulation.  They're more likely to find novelty moves or to play strongly in unfamiliar positions, as well as to grind out wins or draws from games a weaker player would draw or lose respectively.

Thinking that better players look further ahead is actually a common misconception.  What happens with good players is they consider better moves quicker and filter out the bad ones without much effort.  I've gone up 200 points recently, but that is not because I see further into the future - but I've learned about different structures and I have a better sense of where I should be looking.  I've also learned enough openings that I can apply ideas from all of them during the middlegame.

[your rating] - 400 points:
Knows some basic strategic things, but mostly guesses though the game. Will sometimes miss easy tactics. 

[your rating] - 200 points:
Strategy is not all bad, but mostly superficial, will sometimes miss medium level tactics.

[your rating] + 200 points:
Seems quite reasonable and consistent in their strategy, playing moves you realize are good, but may not have seen until after they played them. Sometimes sees a tactics you miss.

[your rating] + 400 points:
Strategy seems solid, but at times also mysterious and even incorrect. Somehow a few moves later your position is bad though. Finds annoyingly accurate tactics and often before you notice them.

Every level, even world champions, miss simple tactics. My theory is put any player under enough pressure and they'll miss simple things.

When people talk about ____ rating does this or that they're biased from their frame of reference. You'll hear 2500 players talk about how at 2400 you have only a limited understanding of strategy. You can be 2400 with only tactics, but to be 2500 you have to learn a little strategy. I've seen these comments multiple times, also from top 10 players (who of course say the magic number you can reach and still be clueless is 2600).

But in reality every player says this. The real comment is:

"Players 100-200 points below me don't have some essential skill or knowledge, but to be my level you need the thing I recently learned and/or consciously apply in my games"

Depends on the time control.

But in standard i have been able to outplay 2000+ players and im rated lower than these ratings but that doesnt help much when i somehow manage to drop a piece in 9 out of 10 of my games

It really does depend on the time control. 

At 3 minute chess, 1600s (like me) ROUTINELY blunder to easy 1-2 move combos and even do stupid stuff like hanging the Q against similar or stronger opposition.  Even 1800s do this (less frequently) at 3-min time control.

It however would be incorrect though, to assume that because 1600s routinely blunder pieces in head to head games of similar strength, that they'll blunder pieces outright against much weaker (1200 strength) opposition. A 1200 level player will not pressure the position such that it is easy for the 1600 to get confused and blunder stuff. Whereas a 2000+ player will squeeze the 1600 so hard that they'll often be in positions where there the only survivable line is not-obvious to find and thus it is easy to hang a piece and blunder.

Chess blunders are usually two-sided - the harder your opponent makes you work, the higher your blunder rate. Even in 'quiet' positions, once the opponent puts the positional squeeze on, it's remarkably easy to get so focused on the small imbalances that you outright hang a piece.

I agree with last comment. But it seems we are having an inflation process in this site. I was around 1650-1750 player until last month and I've got 1800 without problems this week and I sincerely believe I can get more.

I'm a 1800 player myself, and since it was not so long ago that i was at 1600, and that i constantly play 2000 opponents, i can tell you the following differences:

The diference between a 1600 and a 1800 is THEORY, and the diference between a 1800 and a 2000 is COMPRENHENSION, and the general difference between all of them is CALCULATION. Now, let me explain these ideas.

When i say that what differs a 1600 from a 1800 is the theory, i mean ALL the theory, this means that an 1800 player will almost always know the first 5-10 or maybe even 15 moves of their lines, so that they don't fall for the traps that 1600 die in. Also, 1800 know something more important that their openings' moves, they know their ideas, and have a grasp on how to play them after the book is over, whereas 1600 just stand there themselves, alone with their still poor capability of composing a proper plan to face the position. Also, you have to know that theory is not just openings, it's also endgames and, even more importantly, ideas and concepts, within which you'll find the famous TACTICAL MOTIVES which really help you finding tactics and combinations that would be REALLY hard to find or ever to consider unless you know these tactical IDEAS AND PATTERNS. So, to summarize for you because i'm so awesome: 

The diferences between 1600s and 1800s are:

1. 1800 have basic opening theory and KINDA know what their opening is about.

2. 1800 Know many tactical ideas, endgame and middlegame concepts and patterns.

3. 1800 can PROPERLY calculate 2 or 3 moves ahead, whereas 1600s tend to mess up by that point

4. 1800 keep good vision of the board, meaning that they, unlike 1600, won't miss the classic "fiancheto bishop takes unprotected rook in the opposite corner" tricks.

Now into the 1800s vs 2000s. What i mean by COMPRENHENSION i mean just that. 2000 know pretty much the same as 1800 do plus a little bit, but the important part is that they have really understood it, and have started to actually connect with the true essence and beauty of chess, thus abandoning the sin of GREED. They won't go for that juicy b pawn, no, they know their piece won't be happy going out of its way for a far and miseable pawn, no, they will take their pieces into their most active squares and go for the kill. Of course, they too make mistakes, but these are way harder to detect and punish. Also, by this point, the "mistakes" are not like they hang a piece or something, but more like an exchange, a pawn, a positional, non-tangible, advantage. Also they know more concepts than 1800, they do know (at least 70%) what their opening is about, plus they probably have played it a lot. So they will pretty much always have a hint on how to treat the positions that arise. To summarize:

1. 2000 players have abandoned the sin of greed, and ascended to a higher plane by doing so. They won't be greedy for material, they strive for activity. To clarify, "to be greedy" usually is about pawns you really should not take. Also, they know more or less when they should and shouldn't go for that material, if it's indeed the way to go.

2. 2000 comprenhend and apply better the ideas that 1800 know. That's the difference. 1800 know the ideas, the 2000 understand those ideas, and therefore apply them more regularly and in superior ways.

3. 2000 not only understand better these ideas, concepts and openings, they also know more of them, specially in endings. some of these ideas are actually advanced and you can see them in even the elite players' games, like the concept of triangulation.

4. 2000 have managed to incorporate a better and faster calculating process within their minds. They have attained some degree of order/ systematization in their calculations, therefore, they can calculate faster and better than 1800, just by comprenhending better the nature of calculations and forcing lines in chess.

I think that's it, maybe this descriptions overtune 2000 players, since me being a recently made 1800 player makes judge them from a not so objective perspective, but i think it's accurate enough to properly answer your doubts.

winning games no matter how rated u r

some people r play less to focus on other things...

All of it really depends. 200 points can really have slight changes in gameplay that can lead eventually to success if you can earn it.

1600 elo don't drop pieces at 15+10 or slower;1600 elo = 1800 here.

Yes but if you don't look 2 or 3 moves ahead you cannot win most game against a 1800+ player.

In game 15 +10 or slower most of the players under 1800 do not look 2 or 3 moves ahead and that is why i beat them.

Of course you are a Beast!