According to uhohspaghettio
"A 1200 rated player could beat Topolov (sic) if he had 6 hours to think of each move vs Topolov's 3 minutes."
"The ONLY THING the GM has in that situation is general knowledge such as that a3 isn't a great position for a knight"
Got that, people? The only thing that differentiates a GM from a weak player is a knowledge of "general principles", and the ability to "calculate quicker".
From this post: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/uscf-ratings?page=2
uhoh should be able to beat a 1200 player in those time odd... so I wonder if he really said this or it's taken out of context or something.
Unless his ability exponentially declines as time is increased on the clock (some blitz players are like this, but I assume uhoh would still be able to win...)
Anyway, time odds is only effective up to a point. What I mean is the gap it can close is limited. Even maximum practical time odds, say 60 seconds for the odds giver and untimed for the weaker guy can't make up for a 600 point rating difference for example. A 1200 vs a GM isn't even worth mentioning.
The problem for the GM will be not to go to the toilet once in those 6 hours after 15 moves
Is this a thread discussing the merits of GMs like Kasparov beating up on newbies paying $1000 or is it just another one in the uhohbash category. Either would be fine with me
I don't know a GM Topolov btw
A GM would beat a 1200 easily even if he gave him a queen of a start.
Another thing: a 1200 player trying real hard to calculate wouldn't be a 1200 player btw
I mean a 1200 player wouldn't know what to look at for six hours
Ok maybe not such a valid point anyway. I tried to say it is a skill to know how to really calculate to the core, a skill I don't really possess either
Even if you set it up to where the GM couldn't think about the position on the other guy's move, the GM still wins easily. You could come up with an elaborate time freezing device, or you could simply run a blitz simul.
I think in the St. Louis chess club some IM rated female player gave a simul vs ~12 players each in ~G/10. She said the hardest part was physically having to run back and forth between the boards to not lose on time I think there were 1 or 2 draws.
I've played 2 OTB clock blitz games at once vs weaker opponents, and it's very taxing if they both insist on moving quickly to try and catch you on time.
Is this a common type of topic here?
In other news, a layman would be able to land a 747 after stepping into a cockpit for the first time in his life, provided he's got "enough" time to try out all of those fancy knobs and controls. Sure, a pilot will do it faster but that's just because he practiced a little more.
You mean like Leslie Nielsen?
Another way to put it: If an average person stepped onto a basketball court against Jordan (in his prime) and played him 1 on 1 with a 20 point handicap playing to 21, they would still lose 21-20 every time.
lol, I like this analogy :)
edit: not a good blitz player? Your quick rating is 500 points higher than your USCF (I assume) rating. I know chess.com bullet is inflated but that seems good to me.
You never know, Jordan's laces could come undone accidentally bc he was dazed when he tied them, he trips on them & falls on his case.
Or the GM could get totally wasted & high, and imagine that he was playing giveaway chess.
Even with those kind of time odds, a 1600-1700 or probably less would be enough to slaughter the 1200.
I don't know, but I also don't know anyone else who would say that, so yeah, he did.
THe GM might win only if he plays fast enough. REmember, THe GM can think on its opponent's time.
He probably meant some guy named Carlson he knows down at the local pub
That's because you don't know enough about statistics behind the ratings
Actually, it depends on the player.