The 2000 is 100% better than the 1000, but the 4000 is only 33% better than the 3000.
It's utterly shameless and ignorant comments like this that keep this otherwise forgettable topic going.
It goes without saying you're wrong.
Unfortunately this topic is too ridiculous to be worth commenting on (at least regularly) for anyone who knows anything... so there's a proliferation of silly comments such as yours.
Not double but 60% of 60% from A to C, it's geometric, not linear, if it is transitive that way.
No, it is not geometric, exponential or linear. It is what the Elo formula for expected score says.
To be specific, here is the Elo calculation for the expected score for two players with rating RA and RB.
So if EA = 0.6 (i.e. 60%), RB-RA = 400*log10(1/0.6-1) = 70.43 points.
This means the rating difference of A and C = 70.43 + 70.43 = 140.86, so from the same formula, the expected score of A against C is 69.23%.
There is nothing obvious about this relationship between the expected scores, it just comes from the formula, and the formula has been found to be empirically quite accurate, so the rating system works.
Props for actually posting math (and shame on those who couldn't be bothered to solve what many 12 year olds could).
Still, I have to correct you in so far as the Elo formula has been shown to yield inaccurate perditions when the rating disparity is as much as 1000 (or even half that much). There has been debate and articles written about what, if anything, should be done about this.
But yes, 1000 vs 2000 is the same as 2000 vs 3000.
this made me think of bob the builder for whatever reason
uhhh
See, kids like these days don't know what that is.
If you want to relate to them you have to use Google to find modern children's shows, like Paw Patrol.
Otherwise the result is as you see... they start drooling into their sippy cup with responses like:
"uhhh"
I really don't believe white has an advantage by moving first.
No one cares what you think, and that's ridiculous.
A priori logic and empirical evidence (of many different types) support the idea that white has an advantage. The fact that you "don't' believe" so is utterly meaningless.
We tend to say players 1 point apart are even, yet one should still theoretically win .3% more games than the other! The question is when does the difference in rating points drop below the significance of the different choice of moves? If there are 40 moves in a given position, and say 10 of them win, 20 of them draw, and 10 lose, and there is a rating difference of less than 40 points, at some point the level of play must overlap with the same move choice with different ratings!
Your imagination is too small. The rating system doesn't care about 1 game... this should be obvious as for one game there are only 3 results: you score 100%, 0%, or 50%.
The rating system is about averages over many games. So while two players with different ratings may play the same move in a single position, it is not true that their moves will always be the same quality (if we assume their ratings are accurate).
Hikaru recently said that Alpha 0 (rated 3500ish) would crush any grandmaster 10-0 in classical, blitz, or rapid/
Hikaru recently said that Alpha 0 (rated 3500ish) would crush any grandmaster 10-0 in classical, blitz, or rapid/
That's an unremarkable claim for multiple reasons.
First of all, the topic is about 3000 vs 4000. GMs are far from 3000, and engines are far from 4000.
Second of all, engines have been able to beat GMs 10-0 in classical, blitz, or rapid games for years.
Thirdly, Alpha zero is years old and obsolete in spite of many casual chess fans (and other non-players) believing it to be the best chess playing entity in existence... no doubt Naka (called "Hikaru" by new ***s) only mentioned Alpha Zero because he knows his audience...
Yes, the 4000 would crush the 3000 just like a 2000 crushes a 1000. ELOs are relative, so if the 3000 ELO was a perfect player and couldn't be beaten, then noone could attain 4000 ELO.
Quite true I agree
False. The 2000 is 100% better than the 1000, but the 4000 is only 33% better than the 3000. In addition, a 3000 guy (or computer) would know every drawish opening until the end, no matter that the 4000 was superior in the middlegame or the endgame.
Exactly, against nakamura I'd score 37.5%. It's simple math.
Hikaru recently said that Alpha 0 (rated 3500ish) would crush any grandmaster 10-0 in classical, blitz, or rapid/
That's an unremarkable claim for multiple reasons.
First of all, the topic is about 3000 vs 4000. GMs are far from 3000, and engines are far from 4000.
Second of all, engines have been able to beat GMs 10-0 in classical, blitz, or rapid games for years.
Thirdly, Alpha zero is years old and obsolete in spite of many casual chess fans (and other non-players) believing it to be the best chess playing entity in existence... no doubt Naka (called "Hikaru" by new ***s) only mentioned Alpha Zero because he knows his audience...
lol calm down
Hikaru recently said that Alpha 0 (rated 3500ish) would crush any grandmaster 10-0 in classical, blitz, or rapid/
That's an unremarkable claim for multiple reasons.
First of all, the topic is about 3000 vs 4000. GMs are far from 3000, and engines are far from 4000.
Second of all, engines have been able to beat GMs 10-0 in classical, blitz, or rapid games for years.
Thirdly, Alpha zero is years old and obsolete in spite of many casual chess fans (and other non-players) believing it to be the best chess playing entity in existence... no doubt Naka (called "Hikaru" by new ***s) only mentioned Alpha Zero because he knows his audience...
If there are no GMs at 3000 and no engines at 4000, what's the point in having this discussion? Also I'm 1300 and not that new to chess...nice elitism/gatekeeping. 'NaKa' would be proud.
If there are no GMs at 3000 and no engines at 4000, what's the point in having this discussion?
Isn't it the opposite?
Because no one is rated as high as 4000 this becomes a question for those who don't know how the rating system works
It's simple math.
Correct
against nakamura I'd score 37.5%.
Incorrect.
nice elitism/gatekeeping. 'NaKa' would be proud.
I get you're trying your best at virtue signaling, but you're firing in the wrong direction. Part of the reason Naka (as you'd call him) is unwatchable for me is he goes out of his way to be inoffensive and boring... perfect for the horde of 12 year olds on Twitch.
(Funnily enough his awful personality often shows through)
In contrast Ben Finegold was a target of the easily offended recently... and specifically for gatekeeping... so yeah, it's better if you name drop him when you pretend to know what you're talking about... and you can thank me for helping you feign offense when you do it too heh.
In contrast Ben Finegold was a target of the easily offended recently... and specifically for gatekeeping... so yeah, it's better if you name drop him when you pretend to know what you're talking about... and you can thank me for helping you feign offense when you do it too heh.
You're literally so obnoxious.. Cba to get sucked into this.
It's simple math.
Correct
against nakamura I'd score 37.5%.
Incorrect.
Apparently you lack the mental capacity to comprehend sarcasm.
Sarcasm doesn't work in text... especially when tossed in among a sea of ignorant comments.
"You lack the mental capacity to . . ."
You lack original insults. Combined with your lack of knowledge on sarcasm in text I guess you're just another kid here.
Sarcasm doesn't work in text... especially when tossed in among a sea of ignorant comments.
"You lack the mental capacity to . . ."
You lack original insults. Combined with your lack of knowledge on sarcasm in text I guess you're just another kid here.
Your trolling skills are pathetic, all that your capable of is reusing the same insults--even colby is better at trolling.
Yes, the 4000 would crush the 3000 just like a 2000 crushes a 1000. ELOs are relative, so if the 3000 ELO was a perfect player and couldn't be beaten, then noone could attain 4000 ELO.
Quite true I agree
False. The 2000 is 100% better than the 1000, but the 4000 is only 33% better than the 3000. In addition, a 3000 guy (or computer) would know every drawish opening until the end, no matter that the 4000 was superior in the middlegame or the endgame.