that kid was Hetul Shah from India and I was also playing in that tournment. his rating is 1817 and he beats Ibrayev Nurlan of rating 2407. Ibrayev is from Kazakistan. Hetul's age is 9 years 6 months.
a 9year old BEATS a grand master
Sort:
I read the title as "a 9 year old EATS a grand master". sufficite to say I was very dissappointed.
kurtmag wrote:
SirKnight56 wrote:
kurtmag wrote:
well hey just goes two show how people take others for granite, you know any game i play i don't care if i'm playing a child or a blind man, i'm going to play with everything i got, and i think thats why this kid beat him, because he was giving it his all, where as the GM was not. i was six yrs old when i beat my frist GM who was my grandfather so their you go.. well done.
I'm sure...
And by saying your first GM.. You're implying that there were others..
Yet you have such a modest Chess.com rating
have you seen how long i been a member?? it takes sometime to build your ratings up you know. but maybe we should lay all talk aside and play a game??? if you want, but other then i have notthing more to say. cause i didn't come here to try and prove a point, i came here to play chess.
i was impressed by the win by the 9 year old too.
and time to build your rating..my account was created 20 days after yours, why is it that i'm around 200 points higher?
normajeanyates wrote:
Non sequitor.
We are not talking statistics.
We are talking about this particular GM in this particular game: this GM played this game below expert level.
Statistics: most people born are dead. [everyone born before 1850]. That *most* is 99.999999%. So you and I are dead????
I am not saying the kid is not at least expert-level. He is. What I am saying is - this game provides no evidence that the kid is near GM-class. Please provide annotations to show otherwise.
There is a big gulf between expert and GM...
I am not saying that this game provides evidence that the kid is not GM-class. I am saying that this game provides no evidence that the kid is GM-class. There is a big difference.
Im sorry but I have to point out that there are more people alive today than there are dead people. Our population has fluctuated very wildly these last few centuries to say the least.
Clearly the number of people alive today, around 6 or 7 billion, is
much smaller than the number of people who've gone before them.
The calculations shown below give the human race about 50,000 years of
existence, and a total count of about 100 billion. Certainly the
figures for the first 48,000 or so years are sketchy at best. But
even if you start the count at year 1 A.D., it's reasonable to
estimate that about 50 billion people have lived and died just since
then, nearly 10 times the number now alive.
Here's one source:
http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7421
"Any estimate of the total number of people who have ever been born
will depend basically on two factors: (1) the length of time humans
are thought to have been on Earth and (2) the average size of the
human population at different periods.
"Fixing a time when the human race actually came into existence is not
a straightforward matter. Various ancestors of Homo sapiens seem to
have appeared at least as early as 700,000 B.C. Hominids walked the
Earth as early as several million years ago. According to the United
Nations' Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends, modern
Homo sapiens may have appeared about 50,000 B.C. This long period of
50,000 years holds the key to the question of how many people have
ever been born.
Year Population Births per 1,000 Births Between Marks
50,000 B.C. 2 - -
8000 B.C. 5,000,000 80 1,137,789,769
1 A.D. 300,000,000 80 46,025,332,354
1200 450,000,000 60 26,591,343,000
1650 500,000,000 60 12,782,002,453
1750 795,000,000 50 3,171,931,513
1850 1,265,000,000 40 4,046,240,009
1900 1,656,000,000 40 2,900,237,856
1950 2,516,000,000 31-38 3,390,198,215
1995 5,760,000,000 31 5,427,305,000
2002 6,215,000,000 23 983,987,500
Number who have ever been born 106,456,367,669
World population in mid-2002 6,215,000,000
Percent of those ever born who are living in 2002 5
Here's another source that uses the same approach and reaches about
the same conclusion:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~bjmcg/story2_peple_lived.html
and another, the same approach but a bit more technical:
http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/People.html
got this from http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/703709.html
Jan 24, 2009
0
#27
well he is only an 1800 rated player! He is by far not as great as a GM according to his rating. 1800 is quite decent but in terms of beating GM's imo would not happen much. Obviously there is always a chance of winning no matter how big the rating gap is. Everyone makes mistakes and luckily for this lil boy the GM made a huge mistake and being a rook down is too much for anyone (well most people) to come back and win from. I reckon i would have had a good chance of winning that game in that position where white loses the rook and hell ym rating is only 1450 otb.
of course, but are u good enough to get to the position where the gm blunders the rook?
wow
bUT WHY WHITE DIDNT MOVE rB1 SAVING HIS ROOK?
Thats good stuff, impressive gm losing to a kid lmao, possible though