like the average 1000 elo player and like a like recently made gm
If we imagine the difference in skill between a 1000-rated player and a GM as a distance and put the 1000-rated player in Paris then the GM is going to be on Mars
no like those chess prodigies versus gms
GM are so much better because they can find 30000 tactics!!!!!
but sometimes those young kids beat gms tho
Insanely strong I played an old NM coach of we played like 60 games I lost 54 won 4 with 2 draws they are infinitely better. Imagine that 10x and then Magnus is even stronger still
k thanks
but sometimes those young kids beat gms tho
Which excludes them from the "average" category, right?
Or the GM was not feeling good:
#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.
And, of course, this becomes a much wilder percentage when we consider 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000 - according to the elo calculator, a 2000 should win approximately 0% of games against a 2800.
with a gm