Whats that?
WHY SPOLIED BRAT ?
Spolied is not english,bright spark,you are a spoiled brat,pity who taught you to insult and offend people,didn't teach to have guts to apologize after,NIÑATO!
Or perhaps your parents taught you to joke in a thread about 153 killed people!!!! And unable to apologize after because you HAVE NO GUTS!
K pasa amigos wow a friendly disagreement.
Okay now your getting to big for your boots ! I gotmore guts than you, back when I was 5 years old right I got hit in the face with a cricket bat it broke my cheek bone and I had too have 5 stitches in it and I never cryed or complained about it at all.
Alright now this is not a contest of pain
Haha, you made me laugh FVC123.
LOl well i am glad i could make you laugh.
You are quite funny. But no one is more funny than my uncle he makes you laugh all the time.
Me normally on this site I have around 110 games on the go,I also play on three different sites,but the other sites,chess is taking more serious and less talk!
And this "great feat" gives you right to insult people and no apologies after? Come on,don't be ridiculous!
110 games that awesome i am not that good yet lol.
Great feat whats with that. I never insulted anyone ?!
I do not know what to say.
never mind,I won't post anymore,so enjoy all space.
okay
rich wrote: CzarWithinMoons wrote: rich wrote: No one can get to a rating of 10000. Not with that attitude. Goddamn you it's basically impossible 2800 tops.
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.
Goddamn you it's basically impossible 2800 tops.
Actually, I'd say more around 2950. There have been 4 people who have passed the 2800 mark, and another 5 that have reached 2775 (3 of which have a realistic shot at 2800).
dmeng wrote: 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)? 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.
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.
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)?
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.
Thanks Dmeng, you make some very good points. However, I have found a number of fatal flaws in your reasoning.
First, you note that playing at 1 second per move, CzarWithinMoons would have taken 12 days to make a move in each and every game. However, CzarWithinMoons has already told us that all games were played at a time control of 5:3. Therefore, CzarWithinMoons must have been playing considerably faster than 1 second per move in order to stay within the time limits (so your assumption is plainly wrong).
Second, you note that with an average of 40 moves per game (and based on your erroneous assumption regarding time-per-move), it would take 30 months of continuous play to complete all games. However, I have conducted some emperical research (on this site) and have discovered that CzarWithinMoons only averages 26 moves per game. This is considerably less than your assumed 40, and further explains how CzarWithinMoons was able to win all one million games against the Super-GMs.
Cheers
never played more than 20 at a time...! If you play more, you start to not care whether you win or loose & you forget who your opponents are...
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.