How much better are gms than normal players
Sort:
1 day ago
0
#2
It depends on the GM and the "normal" player. Could you please specify what you mean by "normal" player?
like the average 1000 elo player and like a like recently made gm
arcticfoxplayz4 hat geschrieben:
like the average 1000 elo player and like a like recently made gm
This would mean you will never beat this guy. If you wanna have a slight chance to beat a GM you should have at least a rating of 2000 or above. You cant even draw this guy in 1000 games one time. Normally. Although Ive already seen 1700s player that were able to draw against a GM. But may be these guys were underrated. I have no idea. Normally this is not possible.
But Ive already seen on youtube guys that have an official rating of 1600 and played on master level. this is of course also a clear sign of fraud. because if there are guys with a 1600 rating that are in reality on master level. such guys can keep other talented players down. and I guess this is the case.
because when u r on master level but your opponents have only a rating of 1600 u will never get a rating of a master. does not matter how often you beat these 1600s. but if you wanna really manipulate the sh. out of the game you can place a master that intentionally loses against secret society members so that he stays always on an amature rating but if he wants he can play like a master. this is one way to manipulate chess.
H
In a match of 10 games against a guy rated 2000 on chess.com, the GM wins 10-0.
If the GM plays blindfolded, the result is still 10-0.
Imagine a Sunday league player trying to get the ball off Messi and you'd have an idea, sure by brute force he may get the odd touch of the ball but he will be outclassed time and again.
Mind you I have beaten a national master so anything is possible
magipi hat geschrieben:
In a match of 10 games against a guy rated 2000 on chess.com, the GM wins 10-0.
If the GM plays blindfolded, the result is still 10-0.
Really. Oh wait. you said the guy is 2000 rated on chess.com. Yeah thats possible. Even if the guy is 30000 rated on chess.com the result could probably the same. that means if they play otb.
23 hrs ago
0
#10
#6 absolutely correct - having played a few titled players (and only 1 GM) it’s a constant source of frustration that they’re so clearly much stronger than us but it’s hard to quantify exactly how - they just never let you get anything going and you’re left in nomansland with uncoordinated pieces and waiting to lose. My one titled win was on time. My few draws were lucky. All the losses have been exactly what you’d expect!
DoYouLikeCurry hat geschrieben:
#6 absolutely correct - having played a few titled players (and only 1 GM) it’s a constant source of frustration that they’re so clearly much stronger than us but it’s hard to quantify exactly how - they just never let you get anything going and you’re left in nomansland with uncoordinated pieces and waiting to lose. My one titled win was on time. My few draws were lucky. All the losses have been exactly what you’d expect!
No number 6 is not correct because in REALITY it happens already many times that guys with a rating of 2000 or less beat GMs. Kasparow often lost against amatures btw. Bad amatures in simultans. GMs are not as untouchable as u pretend. i have no clue why u r doing this. but every world champion already blundered like a beginner IN THEIR PRIME.
a 2000 rated player has a small chance to beat a gm. how many games they must play i dont know but they have a small chance. a 2000 rated player is already extremely strong. it is not easy to beat such guys. even for gms not. a 2200 player has a realistic chance to make a draw against a gm. especially because modern masters play in general like grandpas on valium. this playing style has the advantage its hard to beat this playing style. but the disadvantage is its also hard to win with such loser playing style. and as I said normally when you play loser chess you cant get the GM title. because to get the GM title (in reality - not this fake world) you have to play destroyer chess. thats the only way to get the necessary winning rate.
22 hrs ago
0
#13
arcticfoxplayz4 wrote:
like the average 1000 elo player and like a like recently made gm
Imagine a professional football player from a top 5 league in Europe, that is good enough to be there but not to play every game vs a high school student that plays football from time to time with his friends.
Or a PhD in mathematics vs an elementary school student that is kind of good for his age in math.
Basically, it doesn't make sense to compare these 2 levels.
It would be like Brian Scalabrine in his prime versus a 10 year old 5ft tall recreational hooper.
22 hrs ago
0
#15
Hochdeutscher wrote:
DoYouLikeCurry hat geschrieben:
#6 absolutely correct - having played a few titled players (and only 1 GM) it’s a constant source of frustration that they’re so clearly much stronger than us but it’s hard to quantify exactly how - they just never let you get anything going and you’re left in nomansland with uncoordinated pieces and waiting to lose. My one titled win was on time. My few draws were lucky. All the losses have been exactly what you’d expect!
No number 6 is not correct because in REALITY it happens already many times that guys with a rating of 2000 or less beat GMs. Kasparow often lost against amatures btw. Bad amatures in simultans. GMs are not as untouchable as u pretend. i have no clue why u r doing this. but every world champion already blundered like a beginner IN THEIR PRIME.
a 2000 rated player has a small chance to beat a gm. how many games they must play i dont know but they have a small chance. a 2000 rated player is already extremely strong. it is not easy to beat such guys. even for gms not. a 2200 player has a realistic chance to make a draw against a gm. especially because modern masters play in general like grandpas on valium. this playing style has the advantage its hard to beat this playing style. but the disadvantage is its also hard to win with such loser playing style. and as I said normally when you play loser chess you cant get the GM title. because to get the GM title (in reality - not this fake world) you have to play destroyer chess. thats the only way to get the necessary winning rate.
Soooo..... in any given set of 10 games, as #6 said, we'd expect the GM to win about 10 of the games. If you want to see how rating calculators would see it, let's assume that your GM is 2600 on chess.com (this is probably lowballing in a lot of cases, but the maths still works).
The above is the table that has expected score vs rating disparity. If your 2000 is playing a 2600, they will be expected to have a score of just under 0.02 (or 2 wins every 100 games not accounting for draws). If we simulate a 0.02 chance across 10 games, the 2000 rated player would win a game in around 15-18% of iterations. Not impossible, but that means in the remaining 82-85% of times they play 10, the GM will beat them 10-0. That is a fair enough probability for #6 to make their claim.
DoYouLikeCurry hat geschrieben:
Hochdeutscher wrote:
DoYouLikeCurry hat geschrieben:
#6 absolutely correct - having played a few titled players (and only 1 GM) it’s a constant source of frustration that they’re so clearly much stronger than us but it’s hard to quantify exactly how - they just never let you get anything going and you’re left in nomansland with uncoordinated pieces and waiting to lose. My one titled win was on time. My few draws were lucky. All the losses have been exactly what you’d expect!
No number 6 is not correct because in REALITY it happens already many times that guys with a rating of 2000 or less beat GMs. Kasparow often lost against amatures btw. Bad amatures in simultans. GMs are not as untouchable as u pretend. i have no clue why u r doing this. but every world champion already blundered like a beginner IN THEIR PRIME.
a 2000 rated player has a small chance to beat a gm. how many games they must play i dont know but they have a small chance. a 2000 rated player is already extremely strong. it is not easy to beat such guys. even for gms not. a 2200 player has a realistic chance to make a draw against a gm. especially because modern masters play in general like grandpas on valium. this playing style has the advantage its hard to beat this playing style. but the disadvantage is its also hard to win with such loser playing style. and as I said normally when you play loser chess you cant get the GM title. because to get the GM title (in reality - not this fake world) you have to play destroyer chess. thats the only way to get the necessary winning rate.
Soooo..... in any given set of 10 games, as #6 said, we'd expect the GM to win about 10 of the games. If you want to see how rating calculators would see it, let's assume that your GM is 2600 on chess.com (this is probably lowballing in a lot of cases, but the maths still works).
The above is the table that has expected score vs rating disparity. If your 2000 is playing a 2600, they will be expected to have a score of just under 0.02 (or 2 wins every 100 games not accounting for draws). If we simulate a 0.02 chance across 10 games, the 2000 rated player would win a game in around 15-18% of iterations. Not impossible, but that means in the remaining 82-85% of times they play 10, the GM will beat them 10-0. That is a fair enough probability for #6 to make their claim.
I c braindead people and they cum for me.
i mean that are gms really that good because you see some falling to young chess prodigies
u wont get my brain zombies.
what??
21 hrs ago
0
#20
arcticfoxplayz4 wrote:
i mean that are gms really that good because you see some falling to young chess prodigies
Young prodigies are very strong as well, many of them are FMs or IMs, and some of them are underrated because they haven't played enough games yet.
You can't compare a young prodigy with 1 000 chess.com rated player.
just asking