What is the main difference between 1700 and 2000+players?

@Das-49-Euro-Ticket I am not attacking you, nor was I under the impression that you are attacking him. I don't know why you feel the way you feel. I am again saying that I think watching some speedrun stream is bad, without providing anything to back it up, but probably with my chess experience and also being a former streamer myself I will have my reasons as to why I think that this is bad advice. Now you actually start attacking me as a person, making unfair allegations, calling me condescending and so on. Just unfair and nothing else, so I will end this conversation. I am not getting into an insulting debate and I hope you will apologize.

To answer OP's question the difference is 300 elo points.

@CheerUpChess-Youtube Instead of derailing the conversation calling it an insulting debate (hilarious, really), why don't you just provide reasons on why Daniel Naroditsky is not good enough for the OP in order to achieve significant progress towards his goal of becoming a better player positionally speaking? Substantial reasons would be welcome, references to your vast chess skills are not striking.

@Das-49-Euro-Ticket because the activity of watching someone explain things is a very passive one. Most players are unable to learn by simply watching something, they instead subconsciously start using it as an excuse and substitute for an active activity and may soon find themselves in a rabbit hole of useless information even when they started out with helpful content. Naroditsky is without a doubt one of the best, fastest and most creative chess players and explainers, so that you mention him is a good sign, because he indeed does fantastic content. That however doesn't change the fact, that most (of course not all) players, but most, will use it in a way that won't profit them, but distract them from achieving their chess goals or life goals. Youtube or streaming content cannot help a player a lot in improving their game, as every human has different strengths and weaknesses. Everyone makes different mistakes in chess. No matter if they watch Hikaru or Naroditsky, those players won't focus on individual training, but on generalized advice once again, flooding every watcher's brain with mostly FOR THEM PERSONALLY useless information, making the activity alltogether questionable. The chance that a streamer or youtuber says by accident what you personally would need to hear to improve is relativitely small. Now why would I say that when I am doing youtube myself too? Because I am simply being honest here. I try my best to provide good, helpful content, but in the long-term it will only help people a bit, not as much as coaching, to watch it.

Now before you start lecturing me about why I would call the advice bad altogether, when it may just be "good, but not the best" is because of the way you are delivering it, portraying it as if the expertise of one player could just hop on the one who watches it. What is needed is someone who focuses on the individual, whether or not the person is a true expert is SECONDARY. Now the best would be of course to take classes with Naroditsky, but that would probably cost 50$ an hour, so I wouldn't suggest that either. I really got tired over all these years of people suggesting famous and strong players as a solution to beginner's problems, as the problems of beginners have NOTHING to do with the expertise someone like Naroditsky can offer. Beginners simply blunder. Even I still simply blunder. I will soon create a blog, writing it right now, where you can see where I mean exactly. Up until a very high rating of let's say 2300 or 2400 rapid I see no real use for watching content from geniuses like Naroditsky. Yes, he is an absolute legend. But that doesn't help a 1700 rapid player. I am sure. This is my opinion. And I would never say something like that to downtalk others in a condescending way. Naroditsky is a hero to me. It is about the way of teaching that differs, not about the person who does it. I wouldn't mind if you were the coach, as I consider your rating to be high enough to do the job aswell up until a rating of 2000.

I like thinking a lot about how to help players too, I may come across harsh and like a know-it-all at times, but that is not my true nature. I understand that it might seem like that in a forum where you only have text and no voice or emotion. However I still think your behaviour was SLIGHTLY! inappropriate towards me. Anyways moving on. If you don't like my reaction now, it is what it is and let's just settle with having different opinions about this.

For what it’s worth, my intention was to help the OP, or anyone else reading it. Even if the OP just takes a sliver of it and runs with it (for example... deciding he wants to become a tactical monster) or even if the OP eventually does none of what I recommended but is inspired by the post somehow, then I feel it was time well spent. And actually, the OP put a heart on my comment and sent me a private message saying how much he appreciated it. Was my message too in depth? Possibly. But he clearly felt it was beneficial and I’m happy about that, even if he is someone who I might never hear from again. I was truly happy that I could use my experience to help out some random chess enthusiast. A complete stranger.

No, I think your response is great. I see what you are talking about, I too think less talking and more doing is key. It's not unusual two people having rather similar opinions but can't find a way to properly communicate with each other. On the other hand there obviously is a dissent, still. Have you watched the content by Naroditsky I am talking about? It has helped me tremendously whenever I watched it over the years. Even though it is on the passive side of the spectrum, I consider it very useful. To those, who do not know what I am actually talking about: He plays games against lower rated players, climbing the rating ladder. He explains pretty much move by move what he is doing during the game, writes down ideas he wants to explain after the game, then when the game is finished, analyzes the game, all in a way that is understandable for lower rated players. He tries to tailor the explanations to the audience without sacrificing objectivity. His play is principled, if there is something to punish he does so, instead of telling you: well, that's too hard, let's not do it. So while you are watching you can learn something no matter your level. As a player we can learn to think anew. It's like watching it reprograms your chess mind to some extent. Obviously you still need to play and analyze and do your tactics and what not, but your game will change for the better, that's my opinion.
Something completely different would be a speedrun by the aforementioned Hikaru Nakamura. Nakamura is a great player, but I can't learn much from his games, my brain just switches to popcorn mode and stops thinking. Even when I watch players like Eric Hansen playing titled Tuesday, I try to learn and comprehend what's going on, but the actual learning is probably close to zero.
Oh, let me also quote you once: "[T]hose players won't focus on individual training, but on generalized advice once again": Quite the contrary, we are having concrete games and as such the advice is as specific as it gets. It's not just chunks of advice and now you need to deal with it, the eat or die approach, it's principles in execution and that is priceless, since you see General Advice executed (uhm...) over and over again. Which is great (in a way).
Now since you also said that beginners and even players of our strength simply blunder: Yes, but that won't change if you learn intricacies about pawn structures. That doesn't make the knowledge less valuable though. Beginners can learn a great deal from Naroditsky playing against players of their rating (and lower and higher too, just on the upper end the games become too technical and concrete at some point, obviously) and explaining his rationale for every of his moves. You can't start getting good once you stopped blundering. You need to get good to blunder less and less (the wisdom!).

As for any personal feelings: We are both opinionated people and sometimes clashes happen. It's not a big deal. I look forward reading from you in the forum again in the future. All the best.

I should start watching Naroditsky.