Don't forget that pattern recognition and viable plans based on arrangements
is something grandmasters have greater expertise with.

Here's what Yermolinsky says:
2200 vs 2000 better feels the flow of the middlegame, uptrends and
downtrends, critical points

2400 vs 2200 better performs in the transitional stage from middlegame to
the endgame and knows and plays the endgame better

2600 vs 2400 has much more knowledge of typical middlegame and endgame
positions (as a result of the elaborate preparation of one's opening
repertoire) and more skilful in tactics and time management.

"BriMarErn" wrote in message
...
I have had the pleasure of playing games with 2300 to 2400 chessplayers
and
walk away impressed with their speed of finding tactics on the board. Yet,
when
these same guys play IMs and GMs they get darn near wiped out! ( I saw IM
Ben
Fingold give an FM known for his tactical prowess 5-3 on the clock at the
World
Open -and beat this guy with perceived ease.)

Usually, after a while and a lot of fumbling, I can come close solutions
to
the Informant combinations in the back of the Informant books. It seems
that
there is some link between combinational sight speed and chess strength.

This question is especially for the above 2200 or high expert level guys
out
there. Do you think that there is a correlation? Do you have any examples
to
support your assertion?

Brian

(BriMarErn) wrote in message ...
I have had the pleasure of playing games with 2300 to 2400 chessplayers and
walk away impressed with their speed of finding tactics on the board. Yet, when
these same guys play IMs and GMs they get darn near wiped out! ( I saw IM Ben
Fingold give an FM known for his tactical prowess 5-3 on the clock at the World
Open -and beat this guy with perceived ease.)

Usually, after a while and a lot of fumbling, I can come close solutions to
the Informant combinations in the back of the Informant books. It seems that
there is some link between combinational sight speed and chess strength.

This question is especially for the above 2200 or high expert level guys out
there. Do you think that there is a correlation? Do you have any examples to
support your assertion?

Brian


Yes and no. Stronger players will often be able to find combinations
quicker; it's in part what makes them stronger players. Additionally,
it may not be that they are actually "finding" the combination, but
that they have seen it before. Stronger players generally have a
larger stockpile of positions in mind than do weaker players. But
sheer speed doesn't strike me as being nearly as important as being
able to spot the combination in the first place.

Regards,
Richard Stanz

I have had the pleasure of playing games with 2300 to 2400 chessplayers and
walk away impressed with their speed of finding tactics on the board. Yet,
when
these same guys play IMs and GMs they get darn near wiped out! ( I saw IM Ben
Fingold give an FM known for his tactical prowess 5-3 on the clock at the
World
Open -and beat this guy with perceived ease.)

You should have seen the IM who tried giving me 5-2 when I was rated 1900.

He got his ass handed to him.





Usually, after a while and a lot of fumbling, I can come close solutions to
the Informant combinations in the back of the Informant books. It seems that
there is some link between combinational sight speed and chess strength.

This question is especially for the above 2200 or high expert level guys out
there. Do you think that there is a correlation? Do you have any examples to
support your assertion?

Brian