Amelia Nordquelle
World ranking under 9 #2708
European ranking under 9 #1814
Norway ranking under 9 #12
You call this a "child prodigy " a "savant" ??
What can be said?
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
mdinnerspace wrote:
In Høstturneringen (Nordstrand sjakklubb) thursday the biggest upset was Amelia Nordquelle (1085) beating Lars Kveli (1728). Lars learnt the hard way that 1085 might be very dangerous. Amelia is registered with 94 games and have lost, lost , lost and started winning.
Right! Let's equate 1700 to 2700.
What comes to your mind regarding "prodigy" is just that. Made up. Nothing relevent to the discussion, as nobody else adheres to your fantasy.
My agenda isnt about proofing that a 1300 can beat a 2700, Its something else. In this discussion some people says that 1300s isnt good chessplayers. I think the 1300s are underestimated. But I dont think they will beat 2700s, not even IMs, in a game with equal timecontrols. It can theoretically and unrealistically happen, but I dont think so.
In my dreams Amelia is a prodigy, and Lykke certainly is. I hope to write more about them after Oslo Chess festival.
Results when players wins 600-700 points up happens sometimes, but 1400 up is too much. I think it was fun that Amelia won 643 up.
[COMMENT DELETED]
There are 3 types of "child prodigies" or "savants"... math , music and chess. The term is reserved for a select few, maybe 1 or two every generation. There are a few chess players around age 10 close to GM. Youngest to achieve GM is 12. Some would claim a few "may be" savants, but the question is open. Capablanca is an example. Claims are made Fischer and Kasparov were prodigies, but no definitive answer. Research the term, you will find it is reserved for the select few. It does get thrown about quite freely, people thinking any higher than average qualifies as a prodigy, but this is simply incorrect.
The phenomenon has been observed in recent years to be exponentially increasing, with a higher rate of savants being born. They reguire little instruction, at very early ages quickly master music, chess and math. But of course, study and guidance is necessary to achieve the highest result.
Asinus asinum fricat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmaster_%28chess%29
have a good read, it's under current regulations
mdinnerspace wrote:
Amelia Nordquelle
World ranking under 9 #2708
European ranking under 9 #1814
Norway ranking under 9 #12
You call this a "child prodigy " a "savant" ??
What can be said?
The ranking is based on previous results. Old stuff. Her first ok tournament was this spring. Its this autumn she really starts to shine.
mdinnerspace wrote:
There are 3 types of "child prodigies" or "savants"... math , music and chess. The term is reserved for a select few, maybe 1 or two every generation. There are a few chess players around age 10 close to GM. Youngest to achieve GM is 12. Some would claim a few "may be" savants, but the question is open. Capablanca is an example. Claims are made Fischer and Kasparov were prodigies, but no definitive answer. Research the term, you will find it is reserved for the select few. It does get thrown about quite freely, people thinking any higher than average qualifies as a prodigy, but this is simply incorrect.
The phenomenon has been observed in recent years to be exponentially increasing, with a higher rate of savants being born. They reguire little instruction, at very early ages quickly master music, chess and math. But of course, study and guidance is necessary to achieve the highest result.
Thanks, its obvious that I have misunderstood "prodigy" a lot. That narrows it down to Anand, Karjakin, Carlsen, Ding Liren and a few more. There are no Carlsenlike talents that is visible to me in Norway now.
In psychology research literature, the term child prodigy is defined as person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer. Child prodigies are rare, and in some domains, there are no child prodigies at all. Prodigiousness in childhood does not always predict adult eminence.
0110001101101000 wrote:
What's the difference between a really bad 1300 and a really good 1300
It was in response to djonni's idea that a 1300 is maybe more like a 2000 but for some strange reason has barely played in tournaments. I'm saying, even if it was, say, an "overrated" 1300, it still stands that he can possibly beat the 2700.
Elubas yazmış:
0110001101101000 wrote:
What's the difference between a really bad 1300 and a really good 1300
It was in response to djonni's idea that a 1300 is maybe more like a 2000 but for some strange reason has barely played in tournaments. I'm saying, even if it was, say, an "overrated" 1300, it still stands that he can possibly beat the 2700.
You should say "underrated", since the actual rating of that 1300 should be higher. Also, it's totally possible here in Chess.com. If we exclude cheating, some very good guy/girl may do sandbagging if I remember the term correctly. This means one 2700 guy/girl loses so many games, drops to 1300, plays a game against another 2700, wins and his/her rating skyrockets.
RetiFan wrote:
Elubas yazmış:
0110001101101000 wrote:
What's the difference between a really bad 1300 and a really good 1300
It was in response to djonni's idea that a 1300 is maybe more like a 2000 but for some strange reason has barely played in tournaments. I'm saying, even if it was, say, an "overrated" 1300, it still stands that he can possibly beat the 2700.
You should say "underrated", since the actual rating of that 1300 should be higher. Also, it's totally possible here in Chess.com. If we exclude cheating, some very good guy/girl may do sandbagging if I remember the term correctly. This means one 2700 guy/girl loses so many games, drops to 1300, plays a game against another 2700, wins and his/her rating skyrockets.
Sandbagging is very seldom happening in Scandinavia in Fiderated tournaments, but there are rumours about one old strong man that drops himself one class down to win blitztournament-prizemoney. I guess some hustlers might do it around the world.
Most of the heavily underrated 1300s are players that improves fast, many of them kids and good players from the internet, that recently has started otb-competing.
Most terrifying are the small kids. Some kids struggle with 1000 level for some time, but then, - boom- in the next tournament they might beat 1700s.
RetiFan wrote:
Elubas yazmış:
0110001101101000 wrote:
What's the difference between a really bad 1300 and a really good 1300
It was in response to djonni's idea that a 1300 is maybe more like a 2000 but for some strange reason has barely played in tournaments. I'm saying, even if it was, say, an "overrated" 1300, it still stands that he can possibly beat the 2700.
You should say "underrated", since the actual rating of that 1300 should be higher. Also, it's totally possible here in Chess.com. If we exclude cheating, some very good guy/girl may do sandbagging if I remember the term correctly. This means one 2700 guy/girl loses so many games, drops to 1300, plays a game against another 2700, wins and his/her rating skyrockets.
I was specifically responding to djonni, though, because he was talking about different kinds of 1300s, rather than "actual" 1300s.
This is an analogy, but how did this man acomplish this being gaunt and aged? I'd read about this 20 years ago. It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's an ordinary human being who knows limitations of potential are only imagined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Zi-Ping
My answer is yes because all of is great if we just think and analyze we can beat anyone.
Elubas wrote:
RetiFan wrote:
Elubas yazmış:
0110001101101000 wrote:
What's the difference between a really bad 1300 and a really good 1300
It was in response to djonni's idea that a 1300 is maybe more like a 2000 but for some strange reason has barely played in tournaments. I'm saying, even if it was, say, an "overrated" 1300, it still stands that he can possibly beat the 2700.
You should say "underrated", since the actual rating of that 1300 should be higher. Also, it's totally possible here in Chess.com. If we exclude cheating, some very good guy/girl may do sandbagging if I remember the term correctly. This means one 2700 guy/girl loses so many games, drops to 1300, plays a game against another 2700, wins and his/her rating skyrockets.
I was specifically responding to djonni, though, because he was talking about different kinds of 1300s, rather than "actual" 1300s.
Why on earth would a 2700 calibre player (40 total in the world) lose games to 1300 level? Absurd
1550 rated bullet player which might be around 1300 in slow chess stealed 1 game out of me (2000+ bullet player ~1700-1800 fide) in total of 21 games played non-stop. He scored 1 win. And that was last game - i played really badly i feeled a bit sorry for him and gave him a chance to checkmate me... All other games i won positionally, not just time wins.
mdinnerspace wrote:
Elubas wrote:
RetiFan wrote:
Elubas yazmış:
0110001101101000 wrote:
What's the difference between a really bad 1300 and a really good 1300
It was in response to djonni's idea that a 1300 is maybe more like a 2000 but for some strange reason has barely played in tournaments. I'm saying, even if it was, say, an "overrated" 1300, it still stands that he can possibly beat the 2700.
You should say "underrated", since the actual rating of that 1300 should be higher. Also, it's totally possible here in Chess.com. If we exclude cheating, some very good guy/girl may do sandbagging if I remember the term correctly. This means one 2700 guy/girl loses so many games, drops to 1300, plays a game against another 2700, wins and his/her rating skyrockets.
I was specifically responding to djonni, though, because he was talking about different kinds of 1300s, rather than "actual" 1300s.
Why on earth would a 2700 calibre player (40 total in the world) lose games to 1300 level? Absurd
Well, that's what's been discussed in these 255 pages.
In Høstturneringen (Nordstrand sjakklubb) thursday the biggest upset was Amelia Nordquelle (1085) beating Lars Kveli (1728). Lars learnt the hard way that 1085 might be very dangerous. Amelia is registered with 94 games and have lost, lost , lost and started winning.
Right! Let's equate 1700 to 2700.
What comes to your mind regarding "prodigy" is just that. Made up. Nothing relevent to the discussion, as nobody else adheres to your fantasy.