How good would you have to be to beat a queenless magnus

Test it out against an engine. I think you'll do better than you expect.

Pretty sure it's easier to beat an engine with queen odds than to beat magnus. Sneaky traps, swindles, complicating the position and creative ideas are something engines struggle with, right?

At least once in 10 games? Probably 1800 is enough, but consistently? I'm not so sure...

And I mean OTB rating, not chess.com.

Yeah, queenless vs engine is pretty easy. It will let the position be calm, and trade everything off like an idiot.

1700 would do it.
At rating 1700 1 pawn is worth 150 elo, so 1 queen = 9 pawns = 1350 elo. 1700 + 1350 = 3050.
https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html 

Engines are not good training partners in this. Engines are dumb, they have no strategy and no cunning. An engine is happy to trade down to a hopeless endgame without a real fight in this situation. Human grandmasters are much tougher.

Magnus played against IM Lawrence Trent (Elo roughl 2400) with rook odds. An 1700 player would have no chance with queen odds. Let's go up to 2200 (which is 2400 on chess.com at least), and we're talking.

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/3jgm89/im_trent_loses_4_out_of_9_rook_odds_games_against/

Nakamura has been doing these queenless runs, alltho he sacks the queen for a minor piece. In this material deficit he reached 2500 elo, but a full queen down it would be less. It does give you an idea.

-6 pts = -250 elo. Sounds too good to be true. Also what I'm hearing here is that engines underperform while they're losing, so does that mean they must overperform while they're winning?

Nakamura and Lawrence Trent played blitz games though... I'm talking about a 30 minute rapid game where both sides have plenty of time to convert a winning position but Magnus could still potential swindle

I don't know why all those courses and books meant for us intermediates teach how to get minor positional advantages and ultimately winning 1 pawn after 20 move grind when it wouldn't even be close for someone even 2400 to have chance against Queenless sgms

Amazing and depressing at same time 🙂

Queenless vs GM would be easy at 2400. Hikaru gets away with it because he starts with his queen and chooses where and when to sacrifice it... often for a whole piece. That's a lot easier than starting without a queen.

Hard to say how that elo stuff hold's up. On chess.com in rapid I'm about 1650 my daughter is only like 430 she has not been playing long but she can find aggressive moves and back rank mates basic stuff.  We also play with takebacks as i am trying to teach her how to play.  While I don't have analysis for the games as thy are played OTB even when i give her the whole queens side or both rooks I was still dominating her in many games.  That being said one game i gave her an extra queen and put it where the queenside knights goes and put the knights on c3 and played without my own queen. She demolished me with checkmate and mid game.  Well obviously not a great comparison pulling from my own experience magnus would win more than you think but sometimes the material is too much.  I will say in my experimentation playing without my queen is not so bad for some reason giving her an extra queen feels way more powerful.   While i won a game when we tried this before dropping my own queen it felt super tricky. Also as someone who watches Naka do his speed run the way he was letting his own queen get trapped and making them spend tempo to take it had stockfish evals of him down about -6 with the one i was using where as starting the game with no queen is about -12.  What he did in that speed run was more similar to starting without a knight by the end.  

Maybe you are right , Still whenever i pick a book to read and author starts mentioning about how great the move was played because of deep positional factors , I get reminded of Hikaru thanking subs and pushing for 2500 and should i be really focusing on these as even extra Queen is not enough to bring me a win 🙂

i don't think Magnus even has a girlfriend so you have to be at least a 2700 to beat him at chess

i like basketball but you have to be really good at basketball to be able to play it professionally for a living.

what i don't understand is why people want to spends hours to become a GM and struggle to make a good salary when they could have spent all that time playing basketball and could be in the NBA.  and then this person fishts could post pictures of you into this forum