In your opinion,what is the difference between a 2200 rated chess player and a 2500 rated player?

Question

Give as many points as possible and be as detailed as possible.Talking about master chess players.

Answer 1

300 points...sorry if i am no help, buy when it come to master chess there are so many styles that to improve you need to practice with many diffrent players, not just one rivail.  this will help you not just beat one player but improve over all.  as long as you learn somthing lossing is ok

think  20 moves in advance he he he lol

Answer 2

The 2500 wastes more time on it.:)

Sorry to not be serious.

OK, one is 600 points over my last rating and the other 900 points.:)

Answer 3

2500 rated players are going to be better in most aspects of the game. While 2200 is master, 2500 is easily getting into the International Master range. Likely these players are going to be better tactically, better in the endgame, they will have deeper opening repertoires because they are getting into the professional chess ranks, and probably better strategically in the middlegame. You can also have players who are phenomenally good in one aspect of the game. For example, if someone has tremendous attacking skills, it can make up for relative deficiencies in other areas.

Interestingly, studies have shown that there is no difference in intelligence between Grandmasters and International Masters. Grandmasters spend more time thinking about and studying the game, and so have achieved greater proficiency.

Answer 4

the difference between the two, according to Grandmaster Larry Christiansen, is Tactics.  Larry believes  that Tactics are what separate ALL of the classes of chess players.  I believe that Tactics do play a massive role in the difference, as well as the solidity of their gameplay.

  I've seen the amazing Slashing attacking tactics of Judit Polgar Crumble to the Steel defensive wall of Karpov.  

Also Kasparov couldn't even defeat Anand when he lost his title, he merely drew with him.  Basically if your defense is Extremely powerful,  you can not lose.  

However, if you can't attack, you can not win.

you must, Just like many things in life, Be balanced.

Answer 5

More than likely, the 2500 has a broader and deeper opening repertoire. Opening theory has become so advanced that most amateur players simply can't keep up with it. Against lesser opponents, 2500 players will almost invariably gain an advantage with the white pieces and equalize easily with black.

Most good players can attack well and calculate variations, but the strongest players are likely to be far better defensive tacticians than 2200 players. Sometimes stronger players will allow their opponents what appears to be a promising attack, but understand that it will be unsuccessful long before the attacker does.

Additionally, the strongest players simply know more positions than weaker players. Psychologists call them "schemata," certain arrangements of the pieces that have to be handled in a thematic way. They not only know more of these positions, but the exceptions, instances where subtle differences in the position change the way it has to be assessed.

Lastly, 2500 players are usually far stronger in the endgame than 2200 players. Like the opening, there is a vast amount of theory in endgame play. Not only do they know all the key endgame positions, but recognize when they can favorably transition from the middlegame to the endgame.

Answer 6

A chess master explained the rating process to me a long time ago. I think I still remember all he said, but please don't sue me if I got a fact or two wrong. My memory isn't what it used to be.

The United Chess Federation (I believe it is still called that) came up with a number rating to gauge the relative success of their players when they play each other in UCF tournaments. The rating is based upon how many tournament games someone plays, the ratings of the people they play in these tournaments, and how they did (win, lose or draw).

To get any kind of rating, a player who is new to the UCF has to play a certain number of games.against rated opponents. Until you actually get a rating, any games another UCF player plays against you don't count toward or against their score.

Once you have played a certain number of games against rated players, you will get a rating based on the above criteria. You start with a theoretical score of 1500 if you are an adult (the starting number is lower if you are a child, but I'm not sure what that number is offhand), and the number is altered for each rated game you have played until all of your games have been processed. Then you get your rating, which is a number between 0 (worst) and 3000 (best).

Although you can approach 0 or 3000, you will never reach those numbers no matter how many games you play. According to the formula they use, you would have to play an infinite number of games and win them all to reach a score of 3000, and you would have to lose an infinite number to get a score of 0. Since no one can possibly play an infinite number of games, no one will ever score in the extreme in either direction.

If you win against an opponent who is better than you ratings-wise, your score will improve more than if you win against an opponent with a worse score. The converse is true about losing. Losing against an opponent with a worse score will hurt your own score more than if you lose against a better opponent. Theoretically, beating a 0-rated player or losing to a 3000-rated player will not affect your score at all.

Now, let's take the two players you mentioned in your question. A player with a rating of 2500 (grand master) has played and won more games against better opponents over a longer period of time than a player with a rating of 2200 (expert). To get a rating of 2500, you have to win against thousands of people, most of whom are better than you. This usually (but not always) means you have to be more skilled than your opponents.

A 2500 player has probably played against many more grand masters than a 2200 player, has probably studied more, probably started playing at an earlier age, etc. But this is not a hard rule. You could theoretically get the same score by winning a thousand games against masters or by winning a hundred thousand games against terrible players.

UCF chess tournaments keep a player from winning by playing a ton of games by grouping players by rating. The grand masters are placed together, the next group down will be grouped together, and so on all the way down to the novices.

Please understand that this is a simplistic explanation of the ratings system. There is more that goes into a rating, of course, but this should give you an idea of what is going on. At any rate, I hope I have answered your question. - LJS