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

Sort:
fissionfowl
EndgameStudier wrote:

Example: A 1000 player has no clue what he is doing OR a 1000 player is average, or a 1000 player is a genius..etc.

As I said, it's relative. There's no way of accurately judging something using language like that. You could look at rating percentiles to judge which rating is average.

EndgameEnthusiast2357
fissionfowl wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:
fissionfowl wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:
breakingbad12 wrote:

Ok, at this point I'm not sure if you are some kind of troll, but I'm gonna unfollow this thread anyway. Goodbye!

What did I do now. All I did was ask a question. What does ANY rating mean without respect to other rating? More people who can't answer even basic questions. Go figure.

It doesn't mean anything on it's own.

Than how did they "rate" the first chess tournaments. Did they just set all newcomers at 1000 and see what happened? What's the default, baseline rating?

There was a chess.com classic thread a while back called 'if you know'. It's starting to feel like that. But I'll keep going.

The ratings judge people relative to the player pool. It doesn't matter if the average rating is 2000 or 4000.

You have to get nasty? Why the hell are u posting then?

EndgameEnthusiast2357
fissionfowl wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:

Example: A 1000 player has no clue what he is doing OR a 1000 player is average, or a 1000 player is a genius..etc.

As I said, it's relative. There's no way of accurately judging something using language like that. You could look at rating percentiles to judge which rating is average.

Really, then why do they label 700s "BEGINNERS" and 2500s "GRANDMASTERS" ?

fissionfowl
EndgameStudier wrote:

More people who can't answer even basic questions. Go figure.

EndgameEnthusiast2357
fissionfowl wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:

More people who can't answer even basic questions. Go figure.

 

Yeah, after being rambled at by the other troll on this thread.

fissionfowl
EndgameStudier wrote:
fissionfowl wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:

Example: A 1000 player has no clue what he is doing OR a 1000 player is average, or a 1000 player is a genius..etc.

As I said, it's relative. There's no way of accurately judging something using language like that. You could look at rating percentiles to judge which rating is average.

Really, then why do they label 700s "BEGINNERS" and 2500s "GRANDMASTERS" ?

They do it relative to others.

EndgameEnthusiast2357
fissionfowl wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:
fissionfowl wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:

Example: A 1000 player has no clue what he is doing OR a 1000 player is average, or a 1000 player is a genius..etc.

As I said, it's relative. There's no way of accurately judging something using language like that. You could look at rating percentiles to judge which rating is average.

Really, then why do they label 700s "BEGINNERS" and 2500s "GRANDMASTERS" ?

They do it relative to others.

That makes sense, was this soo much work lol?

fissionfowl
[COMMENT DELETED]
fissionfowl
EndgameStudier wrote:
fissionfowl wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:
fissionfowl wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:

Example: A 1000 player has no clue what he is doing OR a 1000 player is average, or a 1000 player is a genius..etc.

As I said, it's relative. There's no way of accurately judging something using language like that. You could look at rating percentiles to judge which rating is average.

Really, then why do they label 700s "BEGINNERS" and 2500s "GRANDMASTERS" ?

They do it relative to others.

That makes sense, was this soo much work lol?

I said the same thing on the previous page.

fissionfowl
EndgameStudier wrote:
fissionfowl wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:

More people who can't answer even basic questions. Go figure.

 

Yeah, after being rambled at by the other troll on this thread.

Ok. Sorry if I was rude.

EndgameEnthusiast2357

No, you said that ratings were relative to EACH OTHER, not that they just pick the lowest rating and call that beginner and pick the higher one a master. I understand now.

llama
"Than how did they "rate" the first chess tournaments." Elo set the average at 1500. It could have been set at anything. It's correct that a rating by itself means nothing. Yes, it took forever for the topic to give this very basic information.
camter
change000 wrote:

is anyone having IQ of 200 smarter than one having  IQ of100?

Einstein, Mozart and Fischer might be exceptions.

superchessmachine
EndgameStudier wrote:
fissionfowl wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:
fissionfowl wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:
superchessmachine wrote:

Good topic! But then how would the 4000 get there without beating 3000's?

Good point, all rating does is compare you to other ratings. What does a rating in itself mean? A 1000 beats a 700, how good is a 700? Better than a 500? How good is a 500..etc. How much better is a 2500 than a 2000? See what I'm saying.

Not really.

Not really what? I asked questions. What does ANY rating mean independently?

I mean I don't see what you're saying. A rating means on average you'll get certain scores depending on what your opponent's rating is. 

In other words, how do you rate THE FIRST CHESS PLAYER EVER, with no other people to compare them to?

You play against komodo 12 to see how good he is!

Just Kidding

Good point. But then we have to remember that people in the 1800’s did not have ratings. It was just established to make it easier to tell skill.

fissionfowl
Telestu wrote:
"Than how did they "rate" the first chess tournaments." Elo set the average at 1500. It could have been set at anything. It's correct that a rating by itself means nothing. Yes, it took forever for the topic to give this very basic information.

Me saying a rating by itself means nothing made the question moot anyway.

DjonniDerevnja
Brixed wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:

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

It'd be the same result.

Statistically speaking, in a long match between a 3000 and a 4000, the 4000 would win hundreds of games in a row before the 3000 won a single game (1 win for every 315 losses, to be precise).

The 3000 would certainly put up a stronger fight (and the games would last longer) than a 2000 vs. 3000, but the 4000 would still dominate all the same.

  1. A 4000 or even 4 00000000000 rated engine can not beat a 3000 315 out of 316 times.  I think the 3000 is strong enough to save more than 100 draws out of 316 against unlimited power. Anish Giri can save 100 draws against whatever you put him up against in a 316 game match.
DjonniDerevnja
superchessmachine wrote:

Good topic! But then how would the 4000 get there without beating 3000's?

I dont think they ever will make 4000. In daily chess I have beaten a ca 900 friend 76 times out of 76 (beeing between 1600 and 1800 myself, and I do  not think I have gained a single ratingpoint against him. Another 1200 friend I usually have picked one point from , so I believe the opponent must be inside a number not to far away (maybe 600?) to gain any points at all.

If that how it works, the 4000 needs a lot of opponents to rise above 3400 to gain any ratingpoints at all, and maybe  he will lose 3 points for every draw, which makes 4000 impossible because the 3400 will draw more than he will lose against unlimited strenght.

darkunorthodox88
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
superchessmachine wrote:

Good topic! But then how would the 4000 get there without beating 3000's?

I dont think they ever will make 4000. In daily chess I have beaten a ca 900 friend 76 times out of 76 (beeing between 1600 and 1800 myself, and I do  not think I have gained a single ratingpoint against him. Another 1200 friend I usually have picked one point from , so I believe the opponent must be inside a number not to far away (maybe 600?) to gain any points at all.

If that how it works, the 4000 needs a lot of opponents to rise above 3400 to gain any ratingpoints at all, and maybe  he will lose 3 points for every draw, which makes 4000 impossible because the 3400 will draw more than he will lose against unlimited strenght.

its really hard to tell, who would have thought players 500 points stronger than a prime kasparov or carlsen where even possible?

 

perhaps you need a much bigger sample of games say (10000 games) to determine the differences between a 3700 engine and a 4000 engine.

EndgameEnthusiast2357
Telestu wrote:
"Than how did they "rate" the first chess tournaments." Elo set the average at 1500. It could have been set at anything. It's correct that a rating by itself means nothing. Yes, it took forever for the topic to give this very basic information.

That answers my question the best. So they set 1500, and then compared the other rating from that. That's what I was wondering, what ratings were considered beginner, average, and master without respect to other ratings.

EndgameEnthusiast2357
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Brixed wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:

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

It'd be the same result.

Statistically speaking, in a long match between a 3000 and a 4000, the 4000 would win hundreds of games in a row before the 3000 won a single game (1 win for every 315 losses, to be precise).

The 3000 would certainly put up a stronger fight (and the games would last longer) than a 2000 vs. 3000, but the 4000 would still dominate all the same.

  1. A 4000 or even 4 00000000000 rated engine can not beat a 3000 315 out of 316 times.  I think the 3000 is strong enough to save more than 100 draws out of 316 against unlimited power. Anish Giri can save 100 draws against whatever you put him up against in a 316 game match.

That's the point I was trying to make. There's a certain level, where the players are so good, that the game will be equal, regardless of the "difference". There's a finite number of moves in chess, but an infinite number of possible ratings. If one player can see a billion moves ahead, and the other can see a trillion moves ahead, the game will still probably be only 200 ish move anyway, so it doesn't really matter.