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

Magnus was beating Lawrence Trent in blitz giving rook odds. It might've been bullet. They're about 400 to 450 points apart.

honestly i don't understand why people are wasting time discussing this. why not just simply contact Magnus either by email or calling him and then ask Magnus to play a game with queen odds.

then you can just answer your question about how strong you will be.  magnus is probably nice if you are one of his fans

#78 he would never accept... and if I would get to play Magnus I'd want it to be a fair game because I prioritize my experience and my chess f

and my chess growth more than proving a bunch of bored people wrong. If I'd win it wouldn't be nothing while not winning and not quitting chess is entirely out of the question

i noticed that in the 1970s, Fischer was the only player with a 2780 rating.  the next 9 highest rated players all had ratings in the 2600s.

today Magnus has a 2800 rating and everyone below him has a rating in the upper 2700s

is this a conspiracy ?

that means people rated 1200 in the 1970s should be rated 1400 today

 Not necessarily, you can't guess the rating distribution based on the elo difference between the top players. 

And the lowest possible FIDE rating was 1700 until a few years ago, when they changed it to 1000. Not sure if in the 70s there was such thing as a 1200 FIDE elo.

Yeah, extrapolating from the extreme outliers would be silly.

Also, it would make sense for modern players to be stronger since they start younger, have more training, and play more tournament games.

Hikaru Nakamura reached 2500 blitz in his Botez gambit speedrun. Playing against Carlsen with queen odds is more difficult than playing against stockfish, because stockfish often won't go for the more trickier variation because it doesn't know what we as humans consider tricky.

His Botez Gambit isn't queen odds though.