Agreed. I think that the middle ground is actually the real story. There is rating inflation, but I think the effect and impact is over-stated. The real big differentiator isn't rating inflation, but the ubiquitousness of computer-assisted training, the quality of the engines and the databases, and the fact that there is a strong pool of still improving players at the top. But I think the evidence for rating inflation is there as well, and I don't think it is easily ignored either.
Simuls aren't reated for a reason, FEDTEL ;)
why? do you mean that masters don't play seriously? I know that they may allow a draw sometimes just to finish the games and go back home, but a loss? I think that's too much for them
Lets say GM is 2700, playing a simul against 60 people who average at 1200. Then lets say GM spends 15 seconds per move, making each turn 15 minutes long for the kids. This is a huge time penalty for GM. I once heard that the average game is considered 40 moves. If all of the games go for 40 turns, this means the games last 10 hours, making it 10 minutes for the GM. Whether the game draws or someone wins, the GM just cut his time down by 15 seconds per turn.
As you can see, with this simple hypothetical, this encourages GM to knock out as many of the kids as possible. The weaker kids go first, either by a quick defeat or GM doesn't want to fight and offers a draw. Then he gets some more time to deal with the more challenging players, but since he rushed the games, he might find himself to be up a certain creek without a paddle. This is what leads to his losess.
I think this situation says that simul games shouldn't be rated. Everytime GM draws against one of the kids, he loses hundreds of points. GM would never do simuls, then, since the rating loss wouldn't be worth the money. Of course, GM could just be paid for their 10 hours of work, which would cost a lot more money and therefore no one will fund the simuls. Who wants to do 10 hours straight chess, either?
Even more simply, you can't rate games with a time handicap.
even a high rated player can have off days in there playing techniques so i would say yes its possiblefor a 1300 player to beat a 2700 player
One of Kasparov's great accomplishments was playing clock simuls against entire Olympiad teams and having plus scores.
Suggesting that such events should be rated is absurd though. The psychology and atmosphere of a simul is completely different from that of a serious tournament or match event.
That's a simple statement but doesn't explain why.
In order for a rating to have meaning, the playing conditions must be equal, Clavier.
Even when the playing conditions are equal other conditions must be met, such as time controls and so on. The Melody Amber events were equal but the blindfold tournament was unrated. The rapid chess was unrated for many years also.
Why is pretty obvious.
I once heard of a story of some guys that gave a GM free drinks just before a tournament, the GM still won. It looks that alchohol doesn't not interfer that much.
there is a huge difference in 2700 and say, 2450. Sure the 2450 rated player eats sleeps and breathes chess (in general), but not like a 2700 player. 27 usually means top 30ish in the world.
47, currently. 51 a month or so ago. http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men
If you're +2700, you have a good shot at beating anyone in the world not named Carlsen. That includes the current world champion. Carlsen is currently making everyone U2800 look like a fish. It's incredible to watch!
Everyone is human :) Even Kasparov sometimes blunders - http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=kZqcT66Fkzw - and if you can capitalise on that mistake then sure, you might win ;)
I managed to beat Swedish GM Nils Grandelius in a game of 10 minutes blitz back when he was eleven years old and "only" had a 2000-something rating, while I played on the level of someone rated ~1600 (I didn't play many games though so I had a much lower actual rating than that). But we played in the same club and were friends so he tried to toy with me a bit and ended up underestimating me. In a real game back then I wouldn't manage to beat him, not a chance. Now when he's 2500-something the thought of me beating him is just laughable, and I dominate a 1300.
Agreed, CSF. Some people seem to think that chess is a game of chance. Luck plays a very small role in chess, and certainly does not enter into the calculation of whether a 1300 could beat a 2700 in tournament conditions.
Well of course it'll vary. Sometimes it may take 1.5 million tries; sometimes you'll luck out and get it in .4 million tries; it's the same thing with any probability.
Imagine how many years it would take to play 1.5 million games. If my math is correct, it's close to 3 years of constant 1 minute games, assuming they're all exactly 2 minutes.
But as Elubas pointed out, the number of tries varies. It could happen on the first game.
It could happen on the first game! And then on the second game! And then on the third game! And on the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth game!! And after that? Every every every every every freaking game!
2700 PWNED LOLOLOLOLOL
Maybe if the 1300 was possessed by Fischer, Alkehine, Capablanca and Tal at the same time.
I think the 1300 player could win if the 2700 dies at the board. Only way really. I played a 2200 player once he kicked my ass 5 games playing blind. LOL.