Question for >2300 players

The 2500 is better at all 3 aspects of the game but to me the main differences are -

Depth of understanding of the position - A whole lot of items fall into this category and it's too broad to describe in a little post like this. There are videos in which people about 400 points apart look at the same position and tell you what they think. You can clearly see the difference there. I think Gotham chess had done some video between himself and Hiraku and it was incredible how differently the two saw the board.

Planning + Execution - This is a big factor I think. Lower rated players aren't really working towards some sort of plan.

Better technique - The ability to take your advantage and keep pressing until you win.

At even higher levels, it comes down to understanding of end games and pawn structures along with improving your ability to calculate much more precisely, waiting moves and of course opening prep.

@Fantasy_Variation said in #11:
> The 2500 is better at all 3 aspects of the game but to me the main differences are -
>
> Depth of understanding of the position - A whole lot of items fall into this category and it's too broad to describe in a little post like this. There are videos in which people about 400 points apart look at the same position and tell you what they think. You can clearly see the difference there. I think Gotham chess had done some video between himself and Hiraku and it was incredible how differently the two saw the board.
>
> Planning + Execution - This is a big factor I think. Lower rated players aren't really working towards some sort of plan.
>
> Better technique - The ability to take your advantage and keep pressing until you win.
>
> At even higher levels, it comes down to understanding of end games and pawn structures along with improving your ability to calculate much more precisely, waiting moves and of course opening prep.
Yeah the same thing with a different perspective can tell the difference, sometimes big sometimes small

@AYUBALLENA said in #7:
> Me too
me three

@Linspiring said in #13:
> me three
It would be me tree

@AYUBALLENA said in #14:
> It would be me tree

No I am not a tree.

@Shadow1414 said in #6:
> #5: Rating? If so: I don't have to be 2000+ to point-out that a joke is extremely overused.

Which is perfectly appropriate because these threads are overused. I would have done it if someone didn't beat me to it.

I played vs a 2500 not too long ago that beat me like 6 games to zero. Things i noticed was #1 strategy all the games i noticed the positions developed into me having backwards pawns, locked up pieces, worse development and way less theoretical knowledge in both opening and endgames. #2 tactics. Not only are their offensive tactics much much much better but their ability to stop them.. #3 actually understanding openings and why certain moved are played, there's openings that i legit know nothing about im just trying to get to a playable position and making natural moves hoping theres no trap lol.

I think opening preparation plays a huge role above 2300. Also the ability to press the win until the end of the game like @Fantasy_Variation described it very well and not lose the grip is something admirable above 2300. Between 2000 and 2300 I can say from my experience it has a lot to do with endgame knowledge, but above it comes down to perfection of the whole favourite opening plan - planned over middlegame minority attacks and pawn ideas - until the pressing ideas until a known endgame that is won or drawn at least.

Also something I realised from watching Fritzi (a german chess streamer with 2500) is that he tries to create winning chances out of drawn positions again and again, making it hard for the opponent to just play calmly till the end.

Kasparov described something similar - he has beaten Karpov by waiting for him to make a slight mistake. I guess pressing some points, pawn ideas, good opening preparation and waiting for the opponent to do something unusual or bad plays a huge part in this whole thing.

On top of that the more puzzles you have solved and the more games you have analysed - the more patterns your brain knows immediately until it comes to the point that it all comes naturally - that is why kids starting with chess have a huge advantage. Most of those 2500 rated guys started early with chess or have some sort of mathematical talent or on top of that are hard working students, doctors or whatever in other areas that are even more complex.

Trying to keep up with mathematical geniuses and kids is, for me personally, not a good goal to aim for. I will retire long before my full potential is reached. However if you want to solve 100.000 puzzles and look through 100.000 games and study 1.000.000.000 lines of chess opening theory than I am very confident that your rating will become 2400 or more.

In my opinion it is about enjoying the game and study as much as you feel comfortable with and gather experience. That is how the brain works, learn through pain. You will slowly improve and improve. At one point you will decide to stop or go on to your liking. It is just about understanding that chess is actually work at some point and a sport and not a game anymore. This goes well together with the statement that 2500s are better in every area of chess. They improve one area, then go to the next one ... and there will be always one area to improve on.

There are players with rating 2500 who are relatively weak but very quick. Offline they are about 2000..

The 2500 are actually worse at chess. The ones I play are normally cheeeeeeaaaaaaaaatgttttttaaaaaaasaarrrrrertererers