Two pro pokers players make a bet. To see who wins one chess game they will play sometime in 2011. One player had a peak rating of 2100 but hasn’t played in over a decade and will not study. The other player is a novice, played in his first tournament in January of this year. Who do you think will win?
That second player is now rated 1649! Impressive improvement for an adult in 9 months.
It may not be surprising that the training player used the National Open in Vegas as one of his prep tournaments. At the time some of the tournament staff (who recognized the name) thought that the minimal amount of his play that they had a chance to see was interesting enough that the bet had a chance of going either way.
Assuming age isn’t a factor, (that is, the 2100 player isn’t losing some cognitive faculties due to age), then I’d say the 2100 would win.
There is a definate logrithmic scale of abilities between say, 1700 and 2100, with a much higher climb from 2000 to 2100 than from 1700 to 2000.
The 2100 player would most likely look for small advantages in the middle game, then use superior endgame techninque to clinch the win. Unless your novice spends a lot time studying the endgame, I’d predict that will be the deciding factor in the game.
I’ve found that the differences between abilities in the mid level (1500 to 1900) often isn’t so much in the middle game (looking for tactical quick wins), and 2000+ is knowing how to play a game for a long term advantage and the higher the rating, the more likely they can take a subtle advantage in the middlegame to a dominating advantage in the endgame.
And for the GM level players, they need to be able to take a subtle engame advantage into a winning opportunity. (But volumes have been written on that subjet.) 