Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Can a 1500 beat Magnus Carlsen with queen odds??


  • 2 months ago · Quote · #341

    pocklecod

    AasTmO wrote:

    Reply to Jimmykay: Rybka shows only a couple 1-point swings, at those moves. Still not tremendous, but certainly no 7-point swing. Could you indicate where you think this 7 point swing comes from, variations and such, or provide source on how much ply you put Stockfish on to find this result?

    Good gracious...even his anecdotal arguments and ad hominem attacks are based on false premises?  I didn't even think that was possible...

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #342

    LegoPirate

    Jimmykay whined:
    LegoPirate wrote:
    Jimmykay whined:
    Chessislife2013 wrote:
    Jimmykay whined:
    pocklecod wrote:
    Jimmykay whined:

    Bla bla bla.

    Three points.

    1.  You have absolutely no insight into the psychology motivating what people are saying in this thread.  Period.  This aspect of your assessment is absolutely wrong in at least one case, and therefore is absolutely wrong in its entirety.

    2.  Your approach to the thresholds of skill involved appears to be fallacious.  A sudden 3 point swing would still leave our 1500 in solid control of the game, thus citing such examples alone is insufficient to demonstrate that a 1500 could not be competitive with queen odds.  Magnus would need to convert several 3 point tactical combinations during the game to regain control.  He would also need to do so while avoiding simplication enough to leave sufficient checkmating material on the board.  He would also have no access to any traps or tactics that involve a queen.

      Therefore

    The question is not whether a 1500 is a good chess player or thinks he's a good chess player, but whether, over the course of several games, he can put together a performance in which blunders are sufficiently limited to convert a 100% winning position into an actual win against a player who, we can assume, will not make any mistakes whatsoever.  In my experience, computer assessment testifies that a 1500 is capable of playing clean enough chess to do this at least some of the time.  This is not at all the same as playing completely clean chess - that is not what the 1500 would have to do.

    As such, if your position is that a 1500 would lose every game to Magnus every time, I think that to be extremely unlikely given the evidence, and you have not made very much of a case for it other than accusing other people of some kind of inner dishonesty.

    I don't think anyone here is disputing that Magnus would win some games against our 1500 over time, so if that is your point, then everyone here simply agrees with you and therefore, once again, your rhetoric seems misaligned with this conversation as does your point.

    bla. bla bla bla, bla!

    Childish comebacks are not helping you at all. He is correct in his assessement of you and the main question.

    Bla bla bla bla.

    Bla bla bla. Bla BLA that bad, bla bla am I. It took me only 10 moves of only 1 game to prove it.

    BLA, bla correspondence game, bla bla bla.

    Darn, I thought you were finally gone...

    Which game are you talking about?

    Just click the link. Bla...bla bla bla BLUE.

    I did. What I saw was a 15|2 live game with clearly no 7 to 9 point swings on moves 9-10.

    Note: I figured the quoting might look to big, so I edited out the parts that had the least logic and common sense.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #343

    Mrmath

    LegoPirate wrote:
    Jimmykay whined:
    LegoPirate wrote:
    Jimmykay whined:
    Chessislife2013 wrote:
    Jimmykay whined:
    pocklecod wrote:
    Jimmykay whined:

    Bla bla bla.

    Three points.

    1.  You have absolutely no insight into the psychology motivating what people are saying in this thread.  Period.  This aspect of your assessment is absolutely wrong in at least one case, and therefore is absolutely wrong in its entirety.

    2.  Your approach to the thresholds of skill involved appears to be fallacious.  A sudden 3 point swing would still leave our 1500 in solid control of the game, thus citing such examples alone is insufficient to demonstrate that a 1500 could not be competitive with queen odds.  Magnus would need to convert several 3 point tactical combinations during the game to regain control.  He would also need to do so while avoiding simplication enough to leave sufficient checkmating material on the board.  He would also have no access to any traps or tactics that involve a queen.

      Therefore

    The question is not whether a 1500 is a good chess player or thinks he's a good chess player, but whether, over the course of several games, he can put together a performance in which blunders are sufficiently limited to convert a 100% winning position into an actual win against a player who, we can assume, will not make any mistakes whatsoever.  In my experience, computer assessment testifies that a 1500 is capable of playing clean enough chess to do this at least some of the time.  This is not at all the same as playing completely clean chess - that is not what the 1500 would have to do.

    As such, if your position is that a 1500 would lose every game to Magnus every time, I think that to be extremely unlikely given the evidence, and you have not made very much of a case for it other than accusing other people of some kind of inner dishonesty.

    I don't think anyone here is disputing that Magnus would win some games against our 1500 over time, so if that is your point, then everyone here simply agrees with you and therefore, once again, your rhetoric seems misaligned with this conversation as does your point.

    bla. bla bla bla, bla!

    Childish comebacks are not helping you at all. He is correct in his assessement of you and the main question.

    Bla bla bla bla.

    http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=723389960

    Bla bla bla. Bla BLA that bad, bla bla am I. It took me only 10 moves of only 1 game to prove it.

    BLA, bla correspondence game, bla bla bla.

    Darn, I thought you were finally gone...

    Which game are you talking about?

    Just click the link. Bla...bla bla bla BLUE.

    I did. What I saw was a 15|2 live game with clearly no 7 to 9 point swings on moves 9-10.

    Note: I figured the quoting might look to big, so I edited out the parts that had the least logic and common sense.

    Who cares?

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #344

    Chessislife2013

    Jimmykay wrote:
    Chessislife2013 wrote:
    Jimmykay wrote:
    pocklecod wrote:

    Run some games by 2 1600 players. You will be suprised how often the engine suddenly says +3, then back to 0ish during a game. One side can miss a 4-move piece losing combination, and the opponent does not see it as well. Watch the face of an expert watching games by us B-class players. They cringe in horror when we miss this stuff, but it rarely matters as we usually don't catch each other on it.

     

    Don't underestimate just how bad a 1600 really is. But doing so has defined this entire thread. 1500-1600 players trying to convince themselves that they are good enough to beat Carlsen or any other elite GM without a queen. The truth is too ugly for most of you to face.

    You ARE that bad. You think that you can beat Carlsen because you are afraid to face the truth that for all you have worked at chess, you still suck. And so do I, but at least I recognize it.

    Three points.

    1.  You have absolutely no insight into the psychology motivating what people are saying in this thread.  Period.  This aspect of your assessment is absolutely wrong in at least one case, and therefore is absolutely wrong in its entirety.

    2.  Your approach to the thresholds of skill involved appears to be fallacious.  A sudden 3 point swing would still leave our 1500 in solid control of the game, thus citing such examples alone is insufficient to demonstrate that a 1500 could not be competitive with queen odds.  Magnus would need to convert several 3 point tactical combinations during the game to regain control.  He would also need to do so while avoiding simplication enough to leave sufficient checkmating material on the board.  He would also have no access to any traps or tactics that involve a queen.

      Therefore

    The question is not whether a 1500 is a good chess player or thinks he's a good chess player, but whether, over the course of several games, he can put together a performance in which blunders are sufficiently limited to convert a 100% winning position into an actual win against a player who, we can assume, will not make any mistakes whatsoever.  In my experience, computer assessment testifies that a 1500 is capable of playing clean enough chess to do this at least some of the time.  This is not at all the same as playing completely clean chess - that is not what the 1500 would have to do.

    As such, if your position is that a 1500 would lose every game to Magnus every time, I think that to be extremely unlikely given the evidence, and you have not made very much of a case for it other than accusing other people of some kind of inner dishonesty.

    I don't think anyone here is disputing that Magnus would win some games against our 1500 over time, so if that is your point, then everyone here simply agrees with you and therefore, once again, your rhetoric seems misaligned with this conversation as does your point.

    great. pat yourself on the back, chief!

    Childish comebacks are not helping you at all. He is correct in his assessement of you and the main question.

    You really need to be honest with yourself about your chess. It only took your most recent game witha similar opponent. Look at moves 9... and 10. Stockfish shows a 7 and 9 point swing. Both of you blundered that badly, did not notice, and just went on.

    http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=723389960

    The facts are the facts. You ARE that bad, and so am I. It took me only 10 moves of only 1 game to prove it.

    BTW, this was a correspondence game, no time pressure.

    I had a migrain head-ache, and I might point out that "BTW, this was a LIVE game with 15 minutes time control;" I prefer at least 90|30 - so yes, I DID have time pressure, since that's basicly blitz. And we're best friends in real life so we chat too much in our games.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #345

    eperbab

    LegoPirate írta:
    Markle wrote:
    eperbab wrote:

    I am below 1400, and I could give up one of my pieces, and  have a draw against  Magnus all the time. It would be just super easy for me.

    I'm glad  i read this, i needed a good laugh today

    Just pretend you are 2400+ and offer a draw at the beginning. As eperbab said, it would be super easy. 

    Actually, it would be even easier. I would give a King advantage to Magnus. Without my King on the table, it's a draw. (Except if I win a game against a world champion with a starting disadvantage, wich can be safely excluded here. )
    If  all of my pieces are captured, then it is a stalemate. No king, no problem. Smile

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #346

    pocklecod

    Chessislife2013 wrote:

    I had a migrain head-ache, and I might point out that "BTW, this was a LIVE game with 15 minutes time control;" I prefer at least 90|30 - so yes, I DID have time pressure, since that's basicly blitz. And we're best friends in real life so we chat too much in our games.

    Given all that you gave up what by all accounts was a 0.9 point blunder at your worst.  As such, if anything, the game is decent evidence that you'd be competitive with queen odds against Magnus when actually paying full attention at long time controls.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #347

    tubebender

    Could happen and it should happen.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #348

    enjaytee

    I fail to see how the honorable chessislife2013's blunders or lack thereof in some online blitz game is germaine to the discussion.

    but this all wen't (what the hell is that apostrophe about?) off the rails long ago. some people think they'd win, some don't. personally, I think there's a reason why rook odds, knight odds, pawn and move, clock odds, simultaneous, blindfold etc etc are common in chess history but nobody has ever been foolhardy enough to offer a queen. if you did, whoever you are, you'd just lose. end of (as young people used to say but probably say something else now).

    (and the Tarrasch game where he gave a queen to a drunk halfwit who obvioulsy learnt the moves the thursday before doesn't count)

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #349

    Bartleby73

    Just had an FM showing me a game he had LOST against a 1600 ish junior. He was banging on about the poor opening moves made by the junior. He is right, but the FM failed to exploit them. Why?

    1) The FM is old, in his late 50s.

    2) Psychology - One of the key mistakes of the FM was to choose to take a pawn with the Queen (giving him a tactical opportunity that he thought the kid would fail to defend against; even though the FM saw the line that  would defend) instead of taking with a pawn (which would have given the FM a clear positional advantage.)

    What do I want to say with this? Psychology plays a role. Carlsen might get frustrated with how the game is going and may  start playing in a haughty way and underestimating his oponent, hoping for a quick win. 

  • 8 weeks ago · Quote · #350

    Chessislife2013

    That is a strong possibility, because he does that against grand masters occasionally. And this further reinforces that the 1500 would prevail.

  • 7 weeks ago · Quote · #351

    Badukdestroyer

    @Bartleby... sure psychology plays a role, but think about this... if the 1500 is a kid, the kid might not be aware who how good his opponent really is... so if they have a queen advantage, it could make them play stupidly... If they know, they might be more cautious. For carlsen, he might be frustrated, but that is not his normal play, for example his play on Bill Gates. He will be like "I must make up material fast or win quickly..." now... time also depends, if it's fast, Carlsen will have better odds because he'll just be like... must make fast moves, while his opponent will be like... must keep advantage and end up losing the advantage. For example... I was about 1300 USCF maybe 1100 since I hadn't played in a while but in that range, when I played a 2200-2300 player with only a slight time advantage... My score? I won all games and it was probably 12-19 games... Also think about this... the difference from a 2800 and 1500 is 1300 in rating points... difference from 2300 and 1000 is 1300 rating points. The difference from a 2800 and 1500 is ideas, small tactics, who's faster. The difference from a 2300 and 1000 is dropping pieces, ideas, positional, endgame play. So we can conclude that 1500 can beat Carlsen with Queen odds if they take their time.


Back to Top

Post your reply: