A 3000 could easily beat a 2000, but could a 4000 easily beat a 3000?

This is unproven. And that is another problem with ratings. If prefect play by both sides leads to white winning for example, then 2 equal players will ensure white always wins. In other words, 2 equally perfect rated players WOULDN'T draw, changing the ratings

Wouldn´t draw games one by one. But this does not change the ratings, if there are equal numbers of blacks and whites assigned. Because if perfect players draw then a tournament would result in all draws and no wins or losses; if perfect players win with White then a tournament would result in equal number of wins for each and no draws. Both cases equal Elo.

In that case yes, but then color becomes a factor, not simply who is better.

You can say that it's not proven that chess is a draw, but it's axiomatic for the top players in the world, and even the ICCF. There are serious conversations about changing the rules of the game for correspondence chess to allow a pawn edge to be considered a win! 

There are people who are really not clear on the concept of a theory. A theory isn't proven beyond all doubt, but it's clearly the best explanation for observed phenomenon and can be used to accurately predict future outcomes. 

Chess is a draw. The more people say it's not proven, the more it shows how little they really know about the game.

A rare quality post.

Not rare for @smyslovFan, but rare for the forums in general.

Got any proof of your claim? Remember, White has a tempo.

Well he probably meant chess is probably a draw, not chess IS a draw. But technically he's right isn't he? Sometimes it is a draw. Sometimes it's a win for white, and sometimes its a win for black. So he's right, at least some of the time. As for stating that chess is a draw as some sort of final solution I think it's the same as saying chess is a win for white. It's just an opinion which may or may not be true. I think given that we are in the infancy of computers it's far too early to speculate on whether or not chess is a draw or not because we have so little knowledge about a solution. A few hundred years from now when computers are a lot better I think we can make a better guess. At least by then we'll know how easily a 4000 beats a 3000.

My point was that to fairly rate players, you need an equal game to begin with. So if White has an advantage from the start, he might not have to be as good to win. If I am up a queen against magnus, i will perform like a 3300 by beating him even if I am really a excited 1500.

Unfortunately you have the Elo calculation wrong.

The advantage of the first move equates to about 50 rating points on the Elo scale. 

There's an easy way to equalize the problem of the first move: play an equal number of games as White and Black, thus removing the bias. 

Why dont you check statistics of computer games, there are more than 1 billions games stockfish vs stockfish played already. 

Is this a good time to get some hypothesis?

What's your hypothesis? I think we can rule out black winning a perfect chess game (because white is in Zugzwang from the beginning lol). Either White Wins or a draw.

the higher the numbers get the more often it will end in draws alpha zero outweight stockfish be a lot and still couldnt beat it in 75% of the games

Another problem with ratings is that they start provisionally, so they aren't perfectly accurate. If I am rated 1000 provisional, and then beat a 2200 (cause I am really 2400), the 2200 loses points he shouldn't have. It takes a couple dozen games to see what level a player really is, and in the meantime, screws up other people's solid ratings.

EndgameStudier, the rating system *here* is flawed, but FIDE's rating system has it right. In FIDE, an unrated player is unrated. They don't have an assigned initial rating.

The provisional ratings work the way they are supposed to. But that is irrelevant for engines because they can play thousands of games in a very short amount of time.

FIDE sounds more like the real thing. USCF system seems pretty crappy.

USCF uses the same basic system FIDE does, with minor exceptions.

It takes more to be a FIDE master than to be a USCF Master. I know people who say they are rated in both and they don't even care about their USCF, they use that one to sandbag and then win the FIDE prize money LOL

dont tell them!

its true. a FIDE candidate master is stronger than a USCF national master.

I'm not gonna be a snitch lol. In fact, it doesn't even work because even the top prizes of state tournaments don't cover the travel expenses, entry fees, hotel nights, food, gas, and tolls that you gotta pay just to go to one.