CzarWithinMoons wrote: rich wrote: No one can get to a rating of 10000. Not with that attitude.
rich wrote: No one can get to a rating of 10000.
No one can get to a rating of 10000.
Not with that attitude.
For once, I side with rich (and kingchild). The rating systems used by the USCF and FIDE have a theoretical maximum of 3000 (though some computers have had provisional ratings of 3300). A 10000 rated player would have to beat the best computers in the world (we're talking server-size here) around 99.9999999999% of the time or so, which is not going to happen in a million years.
In other words, CzarWithinMoons is a really bad liar.
CzarWithinMoons wrote: dmeng wrote: CzarWithinMoons wrote: rich wrote: No one can get to a rating of 10000. Not with that attitude. For once, I side with rich (and kingchild). The rating systems used by the USCF and FIDE have a theoretical maximum of 3000 (though some computers have had provisional ratings of 3300). A 10000 rated player would have to beat the best computers in the world (we're talking server-size here) around 99.9999999999% of the time or so, which is not going to happen in a million years. In other words, CzarWithinMoons is a really bad liar. It could happen within a million years if the player in question is rated 10000.
dmeng wrote: CzarWithinMoons wrote: rich wrote: No one can get to a rating of 10000. Not with that attitude. For once, I side with rich (and kingchild). The rating systems used by the USCF and FIDE have a theoretical maximum of 3000 (though some computers have had provisional ratings of 3300). A 10000 rated player would have to beat the best computers in the world (we're talking server-size here) around 99.9999999999% of the time or so, which is not going to happen in a million years. In other words, CzarWithinMoons is a really bad liar.
It could happen within a million years if the player in question is rated 10000.
My point was that there is no way anyone is going to get to 10000 (Remember, when Arpad Elo created his rating system, the maximum was 3000)
I once had 250+ at once, but that was too much. Now I'm playng 30-40 because < 30 is just not enough.
CzarWithinMoons wrote: kingchild wrote: Bullshit Thanks, I was just about to by chess.com accounts for my young children, but forget it now.
kingchild wrote: Bullshit
Bullshit
Thanks, I was just about to by chess.com accounts for my young children, but forget it now.
It's a nonsense you are more worried for my comment "bullshit" than someone telling you are a bad liar,really curious,lol
Although, if I understand this discussion correctly, no person has ever achieved a rating of 10,000, CzarWithinMoons was able to find 1,000,000 people with 10,000 rating willing and able to play him/her over the board simultaneously.
Despite the logistics of setting up 1,000,000 chess boards and moving between each under strict time controls, CzarWithinMoons, a most superior athlete, was able to best all contenders.
I, for one, believe this story - after all, what is the incentive to lie.
However, my question is to the technical naysayers - why is it not possible to have a rating over 3,000? if the ratings are a prediction of the result, why would they not be uncapped (or does 3,000 mean a 100% chance of beating absolutely anyone)?
joly wrote: Although, if I understand this discussion correctly, no person has ever achieved a rating of 10,000, CzarWithinMoons was able to find 1,000,000 million people with 10,000 rating willing and able to play him/her over the board simultaneously. Despite the logistics of setting up 1,000,000 chess boards and moving between each under strict time controls, CzarWithinMoons, a most superior athlete, was able to best all contenders. I, for one, believe this story - after all, what is the incentive to lie. However, my question is to the technical naysayers - why is it not possible to have a rating over 3,000? if the ratings are a prediction of the result, why would they not be uncapped (or does 3,000 mean a 100% chance of beating absolutely anyone)?
Although, if I understand this discussion correctly, no person has ever achieved a rating of 10,000, CzarWithinMoons was able to find 1,000,000 million people with 10,000 rating willing and able to play him/her over the board simultaneously.
There is an incentive to lie. It's called a boast.
As it is, I highly doubt FIDE and its subordinate organizations can even cough up a million people with ratings over 2000, let alone 10000. As it is, even the fastest computers today can't break 3000 ELO for any extended period of time.
On top of that, if you spent 1 second per move, that's 1 million seconds to make a move in each game. That's almost 12 days. If each game lasts on average 40 moves, we're talking over 30 months of playing 24/7, and that's still assuming that each side takes 1 second per move. If CzarWithinMoons were to spend a slightly more realistic amount of 16 hours a day playing, that's still about 4 years to play 1 million people while taking just 1 second per move.
Goddamn you it's basically impossible 2800 tops.
LOl i do not know how high a person can go
I know this much if you try to protect your kids from every bad thing they will never grow up.
Haha, all I know is 10000 isn't possible.
Thats true
Well i learned something new
We all did..
I didn't.
Of course,Einstein!
Lol, that's the name my mates call me.
lol
Really? I though they would call you SPOILED BRAT!
lol thats funny
I am teaching atack grob, everybodi can ofer the tree and games of each one
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.