2200 vs 2700


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #41

    CP6033

    a 2200 is a very good player, but could hardly have hope of beating a 2700. take the world team cup, 2500 players get crushed by 2700's no sweat at all. There is some though that could win, but i really doubt it

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #42

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    Here Kasparov outplays an almost FIDE Master in a simul:

    Annotations mine though I didn't look at this game for nearly as long as I should have. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #43

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    The time pressure blunder was obviously 31...a4

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #44

    DrNyet

    I've been surprised that even "regular" GMs seem to be awed by the ones at the top. I remember Joel Benjamin talking this way, perhaps about Kasparov (in Benamin's book "American Grandmaster"), and some other examples by GMs I can't recall at the moment. One would think a GM would be in awe of no one. OTOH there have been those proposals to create a Super GM title or similar.

    Regarding the strength of top players, I find it remarkable that they are able to play credible games against computers.

    Also, I believe someone in this thread mentioned that above a certain level the K factor decreases, so that a 500 point gap at the high levels is more significant than at lower. Many posters seem to overlook this -- or is it not true for FIDE ratings?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #45

    CumminsTomic

    If Carlsen breaks the 2900 rating, there will be 200 point gap to a weak 2700 player Laughing

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #46

    Jion_Wansu

    2200 vs 2700 is the same as

    1200 vs 1700

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #47

    DrCheckevertim

    Jion_Wansu wrote:
    2200 vs 2700 is the same as 1200 vs 1700

    In terms of winning odds... maybe.

    But in terms of work, study, talent, understanding, and experience... there is a much bigger difference between 2200-2700, than 1200-1700.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #48

    Sangwin

    aronchuck wrote:

    @DrNyet is correct in that when you reach 2400 your K factor drops to 10 from 15 in FIDE.  This means that the gap is wider.  If a 2500 beats another 2500 they get 5 points added to their grade.  If a 2200 beats another 2200 they get 7.5 points to their grade.  So the 500 point gap is not quite the same as it means you would have to win a lot more games to close it at the higher level.  

    I am unclear as to whether the knowledge gap is the same.  I doubt it because all a 1200 needs to do to increase his rating substantially is to stop blundering away pieces.  This would probably close at least half the gap at that level.  The 2200 has to do a lot more to reach 2700 than cure just a few simple things in their game.  In fact in that case the number of things to learn would be huge but also the ability to calculate would have to increase hugely.  So I think the difference between a 2700 and 2200 is larger than the gap between a 1700 and 1200.

    I would think natural ability and a passion for the game would take a person from 1200 to 1700 with very little book reading and memorization required.  @2200 you probably know all the fundamentals, theory behind the openings as well as several main and side line varients.  Basicaly strong in from opening to endgame with a style of your own developed.  I was surprised to find out Dan Heisman lives close to me and with all his accomplishment and opportunity had reached 2200.  I wonder what it is that seperates the 2200 rated player from the 2499 rated player.  

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #49

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    Sangwin wrote:
    aronchuck wrote:

    @DrNyet is correct in that when you reach 2400 your K factor drops to 10 from 15 in FIDE.  This means that the gap is wider.  If a 2500 beats another 2500 they get 5 points added to their grade.  If a 2200 beats another 2200 they get 7.5 points to their grade.  So the 500 point gap is not quite the same as it means you would have to win a lot more games to close it at the higher level.  

    I am unclear as to whether the knowledge gap is the same.  I doubt it because all a 1200 needs to do to increase his rating substantially is to stop blundering away pieces.  This would probably close at least half the gap at that level.  The 2200 has to do a lot more to reach 2700 than cure just a few simple things in their game.  In fact in that case the number of things to learn would be huge but also the ability to calculate would have to increase hugely.  So I think the difference between a 2700 and 2200 is larger than the gap between a 1700 and 1200.

    I would think natural ability and a passion for the game would take a person from 1200 to 1700 with very little book reading and memorization required.  @2200 you probably know all the fundamentals, theory behind the openings as well as several main and side line varients.  Basicaly strong in from opening to endgame with a style of your own developed.  I was surprised to find out Dan Heisman lives close to me and with all his accomplishment and opportunity had reached 2200.  I wonder what it is that seperates the 2200 rated player from the 2499 rated player.  

    Fewer holes in their understanding, better at preparing against specific opponents (a big deal at master level and above), and more chunks committed to memory (a GM has 200,000 on average whereas a FIDE master has 25,000 or so) so less of a need to analyse variations as the source of their "intuition" is better developed.  Also better at time management. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #50

    rtr1129

    The 3200 player doesn't think the 2700 player has a "profound knowledge" of chess. Really, asking a question with an empty word like "profound" in it is kind of pointless.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #51

    rtr1129

    The GM title should be updated. Soon you can be 400 points behind the world #1 and be a GM. The GM title should mean something. If the requirement was 200 points within the world #1, then that says a GM could score 1 out of 4 against the world #1.

Back to Top

Post your reply: