FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Hmm, he'll be playing a while, but I don't know if rating inflation will take it that high that soon.
Today's 2800 was the 2600 of years past. 3000 isn't a barrier like a 5 minute mile. It's a statistic distribution. A better question, if you're asking about chess strength, is if Carlsen will be able to create as wide a gap between himself and the 2nd highest rated player comparable to the greats of the past like Fischer and Kasparov.
It looks like its necessary to create a 120 point gap to reach 3000. I can imagine Fabiano , Wesley and Hikaru climbing to 2880, but achieve that 120 gap is very difficult and time-consuming, because Wesley and them super players always will chicane him, and there are the prodigies too, like Richard Rapport . Magnus will win more than he loses, but it is close to impossible to win enough to open that gap. He will also play some of draws against GMs 100-400 points below, and that does cost som points. Maybe he even will end up drawing the new drawingprodigy- Elias Hulleberg Sidali.
Why even talk about 3000? No one has ever achieved 2900.
I think everyone believes that Magnus is certainly going to cross 2900.
I hope not, but I feel like Magnus has peaked already. I'd love to see him get to 2900 though.
he is a fake champ as all other champs are! those body antennas can reach 4 thousand
Simple answer to the forum title is no. I am available for bets.
No one knows. We must base our judgements on how rating numbers move, not by how skilled Carlsen is vs other GMs because we do not have the ability to do so,
It's like people who play the stock market by technical analysis, basing their predictions of a stock's future price based on how it's price is trending vs 60 and 200 day moving averages, Bollinger Bands, shapes of the price vs time on a graph like "head and shoulders" etc. They tend to do much poorer than those who (like me) invest through fundamental analysis, basing their predictions on the strengths and weaknesses of the company the stock represents: it's earning growth rate, its durable competitive advantages, it's debt or lack of it, it's management's reputation, etc.
Were guessing by the numbers, so I wouldn't put a lot of faith in what we think.
Carlsen's best FIDE live blitz rating was 2948.
If we stick to classical chess, I don't see anyone breaking 2900 any time soon, but at faster time controls, it's more possible to utterly dominate the opposition and play enough games in a relatively short period to get incredible ratings.
Breaking 3000 was always impossible (for Carlsen). Breaking 2900 seems rough at this point...the bigger question is, will Carlsen even have the top classical rating by the end of 2017?
The fundamental reason the blitz rating distribution is wider is that results tend to be more unbalanced at blitz. The easy way to see this is to compare big tournament cross tables. Eg world blitz and rapid championships 2016: the top blitz score is 78.6%, the top rapid score is significantly lower at 73%, and a tournament at normal time controls between the top players in the world would expect to see a lot more draws and a lower top score percentage (mid to high 60s per cent, perhaps?)
Very unlikely now, he seems to have reached his max rating of between 2850-2900 and have not improved much. So he could potentially hit 2900 on a good streak but I do not see him reaching 3000.
A player who could achieve 75% results against 2800s (which is roughly what is needed to reach 3000 Elo) is not human. Literally.
Anyone who thinks I can't get to 3000 FIDE within seven years of this posting is free to offer me $1 million against $1.00.
Can't happen, right?
And DNA never evolves...
Stockfish is rated 600 points higher than Carlsen. Carlsen is a joke for a world champion, almost a disgrace.
DNA takes thousands of years to evolve, not decades.