6

I recall a quote that went something like that: "A 1800 beats a 1500 by tactics, a 2100 a 1800 by foo, a 2400 a 2100 by bar and a 2700 a 2400 by opening(?!)". "Endgame" was in it too, I think. Anyway. Maybe one of you remembers the source and exact formulation. But is there actual truth to it, and you may correlate specific skills with ratings? Clearly, this must be seen in average - I was already an endgame titan with 10 year or so, but reached peak 2300 only decades later - individual player skill strengths exist. (Question obviously inspired by this one)

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5

What I certainly agree with is that 2700+ vs 2600 is mostly openings, and everything under ~2000 is decided by blundering pieces e.g. simple tactics. Which, in turn, means that if one wants to reach 2000, the first task is to stop giving pieces away.

Improve this answer
1
  • I'm not entirely sure about that though. There's always some deeper level to calculate. If all a 2600 player had to do to reach 2700 was stuyding openings like crazy, there would be almost no 2600 players
    – David
    May 23, 2021 at 21:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.