So a 1600 will make less blunders and better moves on average than a 1500 and so on
How good is 1500, 1600 and 1700 rating ?
Sort:
I would say that the differences between those ratings are just overall improvement
So a 1600 will make less blunders and better moves on average than a 1500 and so on
So a 1600 will make less blunders and better moves on average than a 1500 and so on
what would you say is the difference ?
Apr 1, 2024
0
#4
Usually, it is positional strength and opening knowledge that separates these levels; they are usually pretty similar tactically.
I don't think there's much difference. The difference between them is to get into a better middle game with opening knowledge, and to have a little better tactical skills and position evaluation skills. I think this gap will be narrowed easily if players in 1500 try to focus on better position and gain tactical ideas from various openings.
Apr 1, 2024
0
#6
I don't think that there's an absolute answer. Some 1500s probably have better opening repertoire than a 1700, but the middle game gets the better of them. Some 1500s might have trash openings but be decent enough to draw against a 1700 in the middle game, if only they don't get a huge disadvantage going in to the middle game.
Consistency main one.
Patience : 1500 blunders a piece resigns, 1600 will play on for a couple of moves , 1700 done that too many times to know , that they still have a chance even without a piece and at least go until the endgame phase.
Endgame skills very important ! Both 1500 and 1700 hundred will blunder alot but most of the time endgame will decide who's going to win.
Stamina, self control, discipline, experience 1700 will be better in all aspects.
Apr 2, 2024
0
#8
ESP-918 wrote:
Consistency main one.
Patience : 1500 blunders a piece resigns, 1600 will play on for a couple of moves , 1700 done that too many times to know , that they still have a chance even without a piece and at least go until the endgame phase.
Endgame skills very important ! Both 1500 and 1700 hundred will blunder alot but most of the time endgame will decide who's going to win.
Stamina, self control, discipline, experience 1700 will be better in all aspects.
Many good points here. 
Apr 2, 2024
0
#10
ChessMasteryOfficial wrote:
ESP-918 wrote:
Consistency main one.
Patience : 1500 blunders a piece resigns, 1600 will play on for a couple of moves , 1700 done that too many times to know , that they still have a chance even without a piece and at least go until the endgame phase.
Endgame skills very important ! Both 1500 and 1700 hundred will blunder alot but most of the time endgame will decide who's going to win.
Stamina, self control, discipline, experience 1700 will be better in all aspects.
Many good points here.
I play as a 1500 in rapid, and after I lose a piece, I rarely resign, in fact, a decent amount of games that are in a losing position for me that I didn't resign in, sometimes turn out to be wins. But if i do lose an entire queen, then i would probably resign.
If you have 100 (Fide!) ELO rating over your opponent, that means you win 50% of the games and the other 50% end in a draw. Or any equivalent.
Though it doesnt work that well between individual players. Its only on average.
And thats all that ELO means. A value that reflects your personal strength at playing chess.
AFAIK chess.com rating is approx. Fide ELO + 400, so a 1500, 1600, 1700 rating isnt very high just yet.
How good of a chess player would you say 1500, 1600 and 1700 rating ? and explain the difference
thanks