Best "out of nowhere" player?

What's the best a player could be that shows up on the OTB scene out of nowhere? Could a player play online for years, then show up and be a master level OTB player right away? Or are there some growing pains you must go through by playing tough players OTB?

its me

Says the guy who thought that people should be forced to resign.

I understand there are certain administrative requirements, and a rating takes some time to form, but that's not really what I'm after. Suppose a guy spent 10 years in prison and had access to chess books, and chess engines and databases on a computer. Is it unthinkable that, after being released, he could show up at his local chess club and, if there happened to be a few master level players, he could win the tournament?

GM (which has happened before).

Oh.  It's usually that the person travels overseas or something and is an unknown.  FIDE to USCF for example.  Or they play long games with all their IM buddies for years and then finally go to a tournament.  But if all the person had done is play online it sort of depends... did they play any long games or just blitz?  Conceivably you could be master strength, sure.

Yes and no.  To be the best player you can be, you have to actually practice.  To be the best OTB tournament player you can be it means playing OTB tournament games.  Toughness though is in the eye of the beholder.

So sure, you can walk into a lower class section and mop up the competition with no prior experience.  Conceivably you could even be master or GM strength.  But with no experience you'll always be at a fraction of your full potential.  Because you're preforming without specific practice it would just mean whatever you're doing you're capable of a lot more.

Much much harder to do it on your own with just books.  If you wanted to do this then get sent to prison with some strong masters.  Make friends with and play strong masters every day for 10 years (basically private lessons) and you'll be really good.

Read books without anyone to play and you'll end up 1500 or something.  (But after that when you start playing a lot you'll probably rapidly rise).

Guys!! Petermh5 commented on this thread, and just 1 person responded to him! Do you all realize who Petermh5 is??

No.

Click on his username and look at what thread he started. Then try to remember when was the last time you saw him on the forums.

Yeah, I did.  Guess my memory isn't so good.  I mean it's familiar but I don't really remember.  You say it as if he's someone really important that when I remember I'll be all "OMG it's him!"

Well, he is pretty important... I think it's safe to say that no single thread created after his has generated such a large-scale response throughout the chess.com community as his thread did (the Daeth thread was before his thread).

I started playing chess when I went to prison 5 years ago. After two years inside and about 25 chess books read, I have started playing tournaments at my local chess club.

After 7 games in, I have a provisional rating of 1505. I scored first place in the unrated/under 1600 section of my first tournament.

Yeah, I have no idea.

I remember that thread! I had a mathematical proof of Peter's Principle that no one was able to refute (It involved Differential Equations and topological equations of surface probabilities - I think it flew over everyone's head).

Also, I found a post that I wrote that was a timeless classic. It was truly an epic post. I reproduce it here so it wont be lost to history:

Ubik42 said:

"I think many here who are against the OP are likely stooges of FIDE. Does anyone know why FIDE has not implemented these very suggestions?

I just want to say one thing: FIDE's shady business deals are designed to enrich FIDE while blackmailing politicians into priming the pump of Machiavellianism. But before I continue, allow me to explain that it believes that it knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. Unfortunately, as long as it believes such absurdities, it will continue to commit atrocities. FIDE has managed to mollify its more trusting critics simply by promising not to blackmail politicians into combining, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying. We shall see how long that lasts. In the meantime, if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of FIDE's uninformed activities rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into its world. Why do we want to do that? Because FIDE's primary goal is to hasten the destruction of our civilization. All of its other objectives are secondary to this one supreme purpose. That's why you must always remember that we must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to get people to stop believing lies that were forged in the fiery pits of hell.

Even as I write those words I can feel FIDE cringe. That's okay. Cringe. I don't care because its latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining but certainly not informative. There's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will indeed persist as long as FIDE continues to compose paeans to hoodlumism.

I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on FIDE's part to force onto us the degradation and ignominy that it is known to revel in faster than you can say "theologicohistorical". This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that FIDE's cronies were recently seen directing social activity toward philanthropic flimflam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's FIDE's policy. Why does FIDE want to encourage young people to break all the rules, cut themselves loose from their roots, and adopt a silly lifestyle? I, hardheaded cynic that I am, believe it's to create such chaotic conditions in our lives that we'll welcome massive regulation, police restraints, and New World Order socialist oppression just to get order again. If you don't believe me then consider that we must all face the storm and stress of leading FIDE out of a dream world and back to hard reality. This exercise will, at the very least, demonstrate to the world that FIDE has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. It can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches FIDE's nostrils, it'll start talking about the joy of egoism and how it is an institution of morality, achievements, and noble qualities, one that often sacrifices its own reputation or safety in order to pursue that which is right and those things that truly matter. As you listen to FIDE's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice its hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that I support those who devote their life to education and activism. It is through their tireless efforts that people everywhere are learning that I doubtlessly insist that FIDE is a censorious roustabout. How else can I characterize an organization that did all of the following and then some?

• Impede the free flow of information
• Sell quack pharmaceutical supplies (and you should be suspicious whenever you hear such telltale words and phrases as "breakthrough", "miracle", "secret remedy", "exclusive", and "clinical studies prove that…")
• Throw us into a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation

I could lengthen this list, but I shall rest my case. The point is that the earth presents a wonderful example of variety in all classes of the animal and vegetable kingdoms. People, beasts, and plants belonging to distinct classes all exhibit special qualities and peculiarities. Unfortunately, FIDE's special quality is that it argues that black is white and night is day. To maintain this thesis, FIDE naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which it does by the desperate expedient of claiming that the Universe belongs to it by right.

Let us now join hands, hearts, and minds to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by FIDE and its disciples. In its annual report on haughty, untrustworthy incidents, the government concluded that FIDE all but forces its flunkies to judge people based solely on hearsay. Interestingly, its flunkies don't much seem to mind being given such sordid orders. I guess it's hard to free the worst classes of procacious, deceitful loobies there are from the chains they revere. A related observation is that if you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, I sincerely cannot believe that FIDE would consider unprofessional-to-the-core ideologues as stolid, soulless power brokers. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that malign malefactors tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective reality. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a grotesque coterie of moral relativism. Not yet, at least. But FIDE is like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of absolutism and you'll see a morally repugnant Fagin hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of hedonism in a destructive attempt to accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that it's scary how effectively FIDE has been catering to the basest instincts of prudish tricksters. I deeply regret the loss of life and injuries sustained by this tragedy. I am currently working to understand the surrounding circumstances so as to improve our ability to break away from the peloton and weaken the critical links in FIDE's nexus of irritable exhibitionism.

Whenever someone tells FIDE not to create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions, FIDE gets all teary-eyed. My, my; how sad. My heart bleeds for it; it really does. You may not understand this now, and I don't fault you for that, but we should use our words to create understanding and progress, not hatred and division. Why does that matter? It matters because if we were to let FIDE get away with parlaying personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice. Let me end this letter with a call to action. Please join those of us who are dealing summarily with harebrained cretins, and through your support we will provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. Together we will guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by FIDE and its gang. Together we will get my message about FIDE out to the world."

did anyone read the post before this one?

i stop at line 2

I'm a mathematician. I would love to see said proof. My focus is not on differential equations, topology, or probability but I have an understanding of each.

Well, if you are going to get technical with me...

it wasnt so much a proof as an axiom. I presented an axiomatic argument as to why you should resign when down material (axiomatic because opponents had to accept it even in the process of denying it), the axioms were just enhanced by maths centered on probability distibutions of win/loss ratios represented on various Moebius-like topographical spaces, finally setting on a torus as the shape best representing win, loss, and draw as the hole in the middle.

I didn't expect them to understand it, but I feel confident that you, with your qualifications, will understand exactly what I am trying to say.

It was a historic thread. You had to be there. I had a theoretically won game against the internet.

Peter still owes me roayalities for winning the thread while he left to go live with Tibetan monks. Those guys don't even know linear algebra.

A torus is not moebius-shaped. It is orientable.

And I assume you meant topological, not topographical.

I didn't say it was Moebius shaped, I said it was Moebius-like.

In order to get the functions to display properly I took the idea of a cylinder and twisted it, a la Moebius, before joining the ends. Possibly my own invention, but has much in common with a Klein bottle.

As you can see, our non-mathematical chess friends had difficulty keeping up.