what's the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?

What's the difference between 1500 and 2000?

What's the difference between 1800 and 2300?

Are the differences mostly degrees of the same things that seperate the 1300's from the 1800's?

I have always said that the journey to chess mastery happens in two steps.

Step one is birth - 1400 Learn the "rules," and use them. Like develop, centralize, castle before you attack.

Second step is 1400- world champion. Unlearn everything you learned in step one.

My impression is no!

I think at some point between 1500 and 1800 a player makes two changes that make them a fundamentally different type of player.

1st is being good enough at analysis to catch nearly all basic blunders.  Whether the hurdle is concentration or pattern recognition or something else, some players can't do this at present.

2nd is being able to attribute some overall idea or plan to nearly every position and consistently making moves that work towards that goal.  In other words there are no random maneuvers... certainly bad or ill-informed, but nearly none that are random.

I bold the part I do because many players can find a good idea (especially if they've read it straight out of a book!) but often they get distracted after a few moves and there's no consistency.

And this is exactly what separates a 1300 from an 1800 from my POV.  Nearly all of the 1800's moves work towards some goal while his analysis catches nearly all basic blunders.  In comparison the 1300s play looks a bit random and there are odd piece or pawn dropping blunders here and there.

1800 to 2300 is also 500 points, but in some sense I think the players are at least playing the same game.  It's just the 2300 is at least a little bit better at (likely) everything.  e.g. calculation, theory, endgames, tactics, etc.

A little?

Well, I say "at least" a little :)

For example I'm not entirely convinced an 80 year old Korchnoi or Karpov would beat me by out-calculating me.

I do think they'd crush me 100 out of 100 games though

Between 1800 and 2300, both positional understanding and technique kick in (hard !).

...and still calculation, but here it may vary from individual to individual.

Not sure about your rating.

But I am sure an 80 year old Korchnoi or Karpov would beat any <2200 (maybe higher) by out-calculating them. It's in their automatic pilot.

I can play a blindfold game without calculating much.  Of course the same is true for a blitz game.  It's just their immense knowledge gives them good positions without needing to calculate as much as you or I need to.

@ Mika   Sorry, but you're just wrong.

@Herzebrocker   Darn, I forgot about his stroke. I'm really talking about 80-year old former top-players that still have their health and wits.

Interesting.  I'd like to ask an aged grandmaster how much they can see.  You may be completely right.

Of course I don't mean they can't calculate when they need to.  But, maybe more Karpov for his style, I just imagine them beating me without the need for much calculation.  During the game I calculate more, and even more accurately, but it wont matter.  However you may be right they can easily outcalculate any sub-master.

Hah, ok, I'll keep that in mind

Mika are you sure you can play a whole game blindfold? And even if I dont think it works without calculating...

Well, playing a game blindfolded is not hard by itself for me, even when I was a much weaker player I could do it.  But after I calculate a few lines, check for tactics and such, I start to forget the original position (was the bishop on c2 or d3 for example).  So when I play, I calculate only a few lines and I try to keep them short and easy.

I don't play blindfold well, but yes, I can play a whole game.  I would beat a beginner easily.  If you are any good, you would likely beat without any trouble though.

When I was an active player (in the middle-ages) and about 2450 FIDE the world top players where around 2650 FIDE. I suppose I played around 20/25 times against elderly former top-players.

Even though I won a number of them, I do seem to remember that in analysis they showed me many lines/tactics where I just plainly was out-calculated. The other way around hardly ever happened.

I think I mainly beat them in the areas of concentration and stamina. Apart from some games where I just simple outplayed them. (Every dog has its day).

A good example is Smyslov who was still playing at incredible level when he was pretty old already.

Thank you for your experience, that's very interesting to me.

You mentioned 1800's are good at finding and following through with plans. (I bolded it because I agree this part of the statment is very important). As a sub-sub-1800 player, I often feel there is a plan, but find myself distracted from it. Of course, there are times I can follow through and I feel like Hannibal Smith from the A-Team; 'I love it when a plan comes together'.

Do you think the old addage 'A bad plan is better than no plan at all' is OK for sub-1800 players?

Games are often not won by the depth of calculation.  Games are more often won by the depth of chess knowledge and also the hundreds or thousands of positions stored in the mind along with the knowledge of how to play such positions.

He's just beat Uhlmann twice. Yes he can outcalculate most people here still.

An 1800 player is just a little better than a 1300 player in one or more areas. 1800 players still blunder, still make bad plans, still miss stuff, just a little less than a 1300 player. I see a lot of players OTB jump from the 1200-1800 range but the timeline is different for people. I have realized recently that the skill class players isn't as large as above 2000's and titled players. An 1800 player is still mostly operating a lot on fundamental, general knowledge than specialized or complex theory.