A 5000 player has never existed.
Difference beween a 5000-and 3000 rated player
Sort:
The highest rated player that ever lived (fide rating) is magnus carlsen who is under 2900. sorry. Chess.com there is a 3000 rated players in bullet
Jul 22, 2013
0
#4
The difference between a 5000 and a 3000 rated player is one (the 3000) cheats using Rybka, the other (the 5000 rated player) cheats using Houdini.
Jul 22, 2013
0
#5
Wait for the 1500000 rated player to arrive, and you see ! 
Does the 1300 rated player has any chance against this guy ? And I mean any ? 
Highest rated player in chess.com has 3004 rating in bullet and it's because he hasn't played rated games in ages.
I don't even think a strong engine backed with a 32 piece database, which plays perfectly AND looks for the most difficult lines, would be rated 5000.
Music_or_Misery wrote:
The difference between a 5000 and a 3000 rated player is one (the 3000) cheats using Rybka, the other (the 5000 rated player) cheats using Houdini.
No they will just openly have lines of computers hooked up, and then the best opening wins!
Stormstout wrote:
Highest rated player in chess.com has 3004 rating in bullet and it's because he hasn't played rated games in ages.
unfortunatly that is true
5000 rated players are almost unbeatable.
If you play 1.e4 against them they announce mate in 36.
you can't announce mate in 36 after only e4 is played!
you can't...unless you're a player rated 5000, that is.
plutonia wrote:
5000 rated players are almost unbeatable.
If you play 1.e4 against them they announce mate in 36.
do they refute e4 with the sicilian?
LuckySlevinsky wrote:
ChessPlayer6033 wrote:
you can't announce mate in 36 after only e4 is played!
My father in law did that once before I married his daughter,what can you do ,I gave it to him.
of course you can announse it but that doesn't mean that you can make it happen. Of course it depends who your playing, but the top chess players could last longer than that
The game of chess is a draw with perfect play by both sides.
To be rated 5000 you probably need some kind of mind control over others.
You people just don't get it. This 5000 rating that you are talking about is just another name for Chuck Norris.
Then Bruce Lee's rating must be...
Phylar wrote:
You people just don't get it. This 5000 rating that you are talking about is just another name for Chuck Norris.
That actually makes a lot of sense.
The only way to consistently beat 3000 rated opponents is to roundhouse kick them in the brain before each game.
FancyKnight wrote:
That actually makes a lot of sense.
The only way to consistently beat 3000 rated opponents is to roundhouse kick them in the brain before each game.
It's all about the old Humpty Dumpty. 'Cept this wall is about foot to face high.
The user who "almost became a 5000 rated player" that the OP is referring to is ChessNetwork, who demonstrated just how broken the bullet ratings used to be by getting up to a rating of 4200(!). I have no idea how he did that, but certainly in any sane rating system there aren't any 3000-rated players (except an engine I suppose), never mind any 5000-rated players. Yes, I did just call Tactics Trainer ratings insane. So what?
I know that a 1500 rated player dont have any chance against a 2500 rated player, but is a 5000 rated player much better then a 3000 ( top 100 of the world ) rated player? I heard from somebody on this site that the highest rated player almost become a 5000 rated player, so my question is: is there any chance that a 3000 rated player can beat him? Im 1400-1500 rated and my highest win is just against a 1749 rated player, so i think its not possible but a top 100 player..... What do u think?