Answers.Body: <p>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.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-05-23T21:44:53.593Z
Answers.Text: 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
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-05-22T09:55:55.400Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-05-22T09:55:55.400Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: sleepy
Body: <p>I recall a quote that went something like that: &quot;A 1800 beats a 1500 by tactics, a 2100 a 1800 by <em>foo</em>, a 2400 a 2100 by <em>bar</em> and a 2700 a 2400 by opening(?!)&quot;. &quot;Endgame&quot; 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 <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/35126/can-a-2000-elo-rated-player-teach-me-middlegame-play-propertly">this one</a>)</p>
  
Tags: <rating>
Title: Precise skills connected with rating value
ThreadText: # Precise skills connected with rating value
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-05-22)
  
  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](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/35126/can-a-2000-elo-rated-player-teach-me-middlegame-play-propertly))
  
  **Tags:** rating
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2021-05-22. Score: 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.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: 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  
  
  ---
  
  