ok that would be intresting he could slip and destroy pieces and arrested
Could a 2000 rated player beat Magnus Carlsen?
Sort:
And you'd be declared a prodidgy for beating him!
lol what fun
url please
jbomber732 wrote:
And you'd be declared a prodidgy for beating him!
Correct! Any young 2000 who beats Carlsen would be a contender for the World Chess Championship in the future.
MSteen wrote:
Only if a miracle occurred. Magnus would have to be drunk, exhausted, and distracted--all at the same time.
Nice Answer
Jan 15, 2014
0
#70
Steve212000 wrote:
Sure if he makes a mistake and the other player takes advantage of it. Why not?
That's pretty much the point: When Carlsen makes mistakes, they are usually so slight that a 2000 rated player wouldn't even know it, let alone know how to take advantage of it.
And that's why not. Kinda like a college kid on a scholarship playing LeBron some 1 v 1 basketball. Sure, the college kid can play. But Lebron will win every time.
Steve212000 wrote:
Sure if he makes a mistake and the other player takes advantage of it. Why not?
Yes, the 2000 player may make the right move for the wrong reasons. I do it all the time. How do you think I win games?
I never know whether to troll, or be trolled, on these threads. You can just take the ratings and plug them into a calculator and compute the winning chances. Its not that hard. Its just advanced maths. Come back with a PHD and we can discuss.
If a 2600 - 2700 player can hardly beat Carlsen then how can a 2000 player beat Carlsen? that's like saying if a 1000 rated player can beat a 1770 rated player.
No he couldnt, unless Carlsen was delirious, had a huge hangover from 10 beers, a bottle of vodka and had a threesome night before game
Jan 16, 2014
0
#74
Jion_Wansu wrote:
If a 2600 - 2700 player can hardly beat Carlsen then how can a 2000 player beat Carlsen? that's like saying if a 1000 rated player can beat a 1770 rated player.
The gap is much greater, as the difficulty of getting those 770 points (of going from 1000 to 1770) is much smaller than the difficult of getting those 800 points when you are going from 2000 to 2800.
socialista wrote:
Jion_Wansu wrote:
If a 2600 - 2700 player can hardly beat Carlsen then how can a 2000 player beat Carlsen? that's like saying if a 1000 rated player can beat a 1770 rated player.
The gap is much greater, as the difficulty of getting those 770 points (of going from 1000 to 1770) is much smaller than the difficult of getting those 800 points when you are going from 2000 to 2800.
The expected result over a long course of games is the same (it's the way Elo ratings are done). (The work needed to obtain those ratings is different of course.)
Jan 16, 2014
0
#76
Irontiger wrote:
socialista wrote:
Jion_Wansu wrote:
If a 2600 - 2700 player can hardly beat Carlsen then how can a 2000 player beat Carlsen? that's like saying if a 1000 rated player can beat a 1770 rated player.
The gap is much greater, as the difficulty of getting those 770 points (of going from 1000 to 1770) is much smaller than the difficult of getting those 800 points when you are going from 2000 to 2800.
The expected result over a long course of games is the same (it's the way Elo ratings are done). (The work needed to obtain those ratings is different of course.)
Thanks for the explanation.
I was thinking that since the knowledge/performance difference is different, the expected results were different.
Jan 16, 2014
0
#77
Perform an elo calculation for tennis players. Your local club tennis pro would have no realistic chance against Djokovic or Nadal, and chess players don't have to worry about random factors such as heat waves.
The math is the same, as are the chances of a 2000 rated player beating Carlsen.
Jan 16, 2014
0
#78
The fact is that the Elo system just isn't that great, and it gets worse at the highest levels. Whatever the rating formula spits out as a 2000 win % vs Magnus is way higher than the real expectation.
komaromy31 wrote:
The fact is that the Elo system just isn't that great, and it gets worse at the highest levels. Whatever the rating formula spits out as a 2000 win % vs Magnus is way higher than the real expectation.
...based on...?
Vishy Anand played a 2100 FIDE rated player in Blitz last year as part of
an interview (interviewer was the 2100 FIDE player). His opponent got
5 minutes with a 2 sec increment, Anand had 2 minutes with a 2 sec
increment. Vishy checkmated him in something like 34 moves and
used a total of 8 seconds on his clock. In the next game, he beat him in
something like like 24 moves when his opponent dropped a rook and
resigned. Anand had more time on his clock than when he started the
game. I know the post was about Carlsen but I think this anecdote may
be indicative of the strength of players of this caliber.
--Vic.
Slip a tranquilizer into his drink.