He could, but he can't:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1582133
Could a 2000 rated player beat Magnus Carlsen?
Sort:
Jan 21, 2014
0
#103
fabelhaft wrote:
He could, but he can't:
Carlsen was 10 years old when he played that game.
The 2000 would just have to be really lucky.
don't get the wording:He could, but he can't
he could if he could... but he cant because he cant
chessredpanda wrote:
don't get the wording:He could, but he can't
He could when Carlsen was 10 but he can't now.
ooh.confusing
Mar 8, 2014
0
#109
spectralguy55 wrote:
Of course a 2000 player could beat Magnus Carlson! Everyone can make mistakes, and, last I checked, Mr. Carlson is still human, and thus fallable. But, the odds of a 2000 player winning an individual game are rather poor, and the odds of winning a match of any serious length pretty much in the realm of the inconceivable.
Of course it is possible...but think about it this way. Would a 2000 player beat Magnus at pawn odds? Pawn and move? Knight and move? Rook and move? Queen and move? I suspect until you got to the level of giving away a queen and move the field wouldn't be level.
Without odds then even if Magnus flubbed and dropped a knight or bishop or rook it likely wouldn't lose the game.
Mar 8, 2014
0
#110
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.
I wonder if it is even that close though. The qualitative difference between a 1,000 and 1,800 rated player is different than that between a 2,000 rated player and a 2,800 rated player. Any 1,800 level player is still capable of some really stupid moves. Heck even grandmasters pull a real bonehead now and again and when they do it against other IMs or GMs they are dead meat.
But the qualitative difference between a 2,000 and 2,800 is going to be of a different nature. The 2,800 is going to be better in every facet of the game and when the inevitable weakness in a 2,000 level player's game is found they'll get hammered.
A 2,800 dropping a piece or even simply giving one away before the start isn't likely to affect the outcome of the game against a 2,000 rated player.
Mar 8, 2014
0
#111
I'm ~2000 and I have beaten Alexander Ipatov (2634 FIDE at the time) in blitz. I know experts who have beaten Nakamura in blitz.
It's possible for an expert to beat Carlsen in blitz if they play enough games. In fact, I expect that Carlsen has lost blitz games to experts since breaking 2800.
whow
carlsen is basically doing what fischer wanted to do before fischer realized that he never got laid and went into a deep depression for 20 years right now.
komaromy31 wrote:
CP6033 wrote:
lets put it this way, could a 1000 player beat and 1850?
Let's not put it that way. The difference between 2000 and 2850 is magnitudes larger.
No its not, it is precisely the same.
Ranx0r0x 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.
I wonder if it is even that close though. The qualitative difference between a 1,000 and 1,800 rated player is different than that between a 2,000 rated player and a 2,800 rated player. Any 1,800 level player is still capable of some really stupid moves. Heck even grandmasters pull a real bonehead now and again and when they do it against other IMs or GMs they are dead meat.
But the qualitative difference between a 2,000 and 2,800 is going to be of a different nature. The 2,800 is going to be better in every facet of the game and when the inevitable weakness in a 2,000 level player's game is found they'll get hammered.
A 2,800 dropping a piece or even simply giving one away before the start isn't likely to affect the outcome of the game against a 2,000 rated player.
2 posts like this. You guys need to read up on ratings and how they work.
Mar 9, 2014
0
#116
Ubik42 wrote:
Ranx0r0x 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.
I wonder if it is even that close though. The qualitative difference between a 1,000 and 1,800 rated player is different than that between a 2,000 rated player and a 2,800 rated player. Any 1,800 level player is still capable of some really stupid moves. Heck even grandmasters pull a real bonehead now and again and when they do it against other IMs or GMs they are dead meat.
But the qualitative difference between a 2,000 and 2,800 is going to be of a different nature. The 2,800 is going to be better in every facet of the game and when the inevitable weakness in a 2,000 level player's game is found they'll get hammered.
A 2,800 dropping a piece or even simply giving one away before the start isn't likely to affect the outcome of the game against a 2,000 rated player.
2 posts like this. You guys need to read up on ratings and how they work.
not really. ratings are just an attempt to reduce everything down to just one number. they don't say everything. ratings don't "work". not that I agree with everything others have said, but the point is the same, real people don't follow neat mathematical formulas.
enjaytee wrote:
they don't say everything. ratings don't "work". not that I agree with everything others have said, but the point is the same, real people don't follow neat mathematical formulas.
I knew it since the beginning : statistics are a hoax.
Short answer NO, long answer YES.
Borg9 wrote:
Short answer NO, long answer YES.
LOL. Awesome.
Mar 10, 2014
0
#120
As I said, I'm pretty sure that players rated ~2000 otb have beaten Carlsen since he broke 2800. He plays loads of blitz on other sites, and he does lose occasionally.
So, not only is it possible, I believe it has already happened. I know for sure that Nakamura and Caruana have lost blitz games to low rated players.
everything is possible