Guess the Elo
Sort:
chesswithsammy
May 25, 2021
0
#161
1000 1200 1400?
May 25, 2021
0
#162
The correct answer was 2321. You guys were off again. Here is the link to the game: https://www.chess.com/game/live/5574211081
Scores will be calculated soon.
May 25, 2021
0
#163
DragonB12 wrote:
The correct answer was 2321. You guys were off again. Here is the link to the game: https://www.chess.com/game/live/5574211081
Scores will be calculated soon.
If you select garbage games, then don't expect good answers.
Idiot.
May 25, 2021
0
#167
llama47 wrote:
PunchboxNET wrote:
1260, 1416, 978
At least this guy is trying to get the last two numbers...
... a bonus that makes absolutely no sense
(I'm honestly surprised the OP is rated as high as he is... and I don't mean 1600, because he's certainly below that. I mean I'm surprised he's over 1000)
Not really. It's just as likely to be (in a random generator I mean,) for it to end in two series then, let's say, something random. 37 is apparently the most random number. So it doesn't make sense.
May 25, 2021
0
#168
JackRoach wrote:
llama47 wrote:
PunchboxNET wrote:
1260, 1416, 978
At least this guy is trying to get the last two numbers...
... a bonus that makes absolutely no sense
(I'm honestly surprised the OP is rated as high as he is... and I don't mean 1600, because he's certainly below that. I mean I'm surprised he's over 1000)
Not really. It's just as likely to be (in a random generator I mean,) for it to end in two series then, let's say, something random. 37 is apparently the most random number. So it doesn't make sense.
I see what you mean, that's true.
But when someone guesses a round number with a lot of zeros like 1600 they obviously mean 1600-1699... and because there's no discernable difference between 1620 and 1630 this sort of guess makes sense... meanwhile the OP's scoring system doesn't... which I can't blame him for if he's a low rated idiot attempting to make an interesting topic
May 25, 2021
0
#169
llama47 wrote:
JackRoach wrote:
llama47 wrote:
PunchboxNET wrote:
1260, 1416, 978
At least this guy is trying to get the last two numbers...
... a bonus that makes absolutely no sense
(I'm honestly surprised the OP is rated as high as he is... and I don't mean 1600, because he's certainly below that. I mean I'm surprised he's over 1000)
Not really. It's just as likely to be (in a random generator I mean,) for it to end in two series then, let's say, something random. 37 is apparently the most random number. So it doesn't make sense.
I see what you mean, that's true.
But when someone guesses a round number with a lot of zeros like 1600 they obviously mean 1600-1699... and because there's no discernable difference between 1620 and 1630 this sort of guess makes sense... meanwhile the OP's scoring system doesn't... which I can't blame him for if he's a low rated idiot attempting to make an interesting topic
"Low rated idiot attempting to make an interesting topic"
Unfortunately, chess ratings don't dictate intelligence.
Your chess rating only impresses other chess players. A surgeon with a 900 rating isn't uncommon in the slightest.
May 25, 2021
0
#170
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
llama47 wrote:
JackRoach wrote:
llama47 wrote:
PunchboxNET wrote:
1260, 1416, 978
At least this guy is trying to get the last two numbers...
... a bonus that makes absolutely no sense
(I'm honestly surprised the OP is rated as high as he is... and I don't mean 1600, because he's certainly below that. I mean I'm surprised he's over 1000)
Not really. It's just as likely to be (in a random generator I mean,) for it to end in two series then, let's say, something random. 37 is apparently the most random number. So it doesn't make sense.
I see what you mean, that's true.
But when someone guesses a round number with a lot of zeros like 1600 they obviously mean 1600-1699... and because there's no discernable difference between 1620 and 1630 this sort of guess makes sense... meanwhile the OP's scoring system doesn't... which I can't blame him for if he's a low rated idiot attempting to make an interesting topic
"Low rated idiot attempting to make an interesting topic"
Unfortunately, chess ratings don't dictate intelligence.
Your chess rating only impresses other chess players. A surgeon with a 900 rating isn't uncommon in the slightest.
I'd say a surgeon with a rating of 100 isn't uncommon either.
Most people, including the great majority of people in competitive professions, can't play chess worth s**t.
But I'm drunk and feeling abusive.
2000
May 25, 2021
0
#172
DragonB12 wrote:
The correct answer was 2321. You guys were off again. Here is the link to the game: https://www.chess.com/game/live/5574211081
Scores will be calculated soon.
those are the worst 2300s in the history of chess wtf
May 25, 2021
0
#173
id expect a 2000 to play better in 3/0 then those guys did in 5/0
C9_Narwhal wrote:
i think its a 14
bruh :/
May 25, 2021
0
#176
rychessmaster1 wrote:
DragonB12 wrote:
The correct answer was 2321. You guys were off again. Here is the link to the game: https://www.chess.com/game/live/5574211081
Scores will be calculated soon.
those are the worst 2300s in the history of chess wtf
I think everyone overestimates 2k players. I think it's a nice experiment to show how unimpressive they can be.
May 25, 2021
0
#177
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
rychessmaster1 wrote:
DragonB12 wrote:
The correct answer was 2321. You guys were off again. Here is the link to the game: https://www.chess.com/game/live/5574211081
Scores will be calculated soon.
those are the worst 2300s in the history of chess wtf
I think everyone overestimates 2k players. I think it's a nice experiment to show how unimpressive they can be.
The OP chose poor games. They weren't representative of their rating level.
Maybe he's so young that he thinks that's clever... maybe he's too low rated to really know the difference.
Probably a little of both.
May 25, 2021
0
#179
this was waay too fast
it was night THE WHOLE TIME in some countries
not fair
who else votes for the next one being daily
