What do they know 2700+ ? - Chess Forums - Page 2

m_d-man

Jul 11, 2021

0

#21

They can look at the ceiling and see dozens of options play out in their imagination in only a few moments! Uh, of course that wasn't known 9 years ago when this discussion was started. How far must one dig to break out a 9 year old discussion? /sigh

TCSPlayer

Jul 11, 2021

0

#22

I think as a much lower rated than 2700 players, I cannot say anything special. However, one important aspect is their physical power.

Thinking deep burns a lot of energy and one should have enough power to burn that energy. Maybe a 2600 player is as knowledgeable and prepared as a 2700, but they make more sloppy moves, this might be because their physical situation doesn’t support burning too much energy in a short period of time.

I’m comparing 2600 with 2700 because both these players are playing at top level and they earn money by playing chess. So they constantly improve themselves. Maybe a 2500 GM has other jobs than playing and preparing for chess and then it means they are less knowledgeable.

varelse1

Jul 11, 2021

0

#23

dominusdone wrote:

Kingpatzer wrote:

What they know is chess, plain and simple. There's nothing magic about 2700 compared to 2650 compared to 2600 compared to 1600 besides just incremental increases in the understanding of the game.

Endgames are great example. There are probably 100 technical draws in any of my endgame books that if you give me, I can hold a draw against a GM no matter what. But there are probably 300 technical draws in those books that I'd screw up. The GMs would draw 350 out of 400, and the superGMs would score 390 out of 400.

In my opening books, there are probably 60 or 70 positions that I know and really legitimately understand the resulting position from both the black and white perspective and could play as well as a GM. The GM could probably find 2,000 such positions that they know just as well or better in those same books.

In my tactics books there are hundreds of basic tactic patterns and it takes me a few seconds to see, but there are thousands that it takes me a minute or more to figure out. The GMs are better there too.

And so on and so on.

But as ratings converge, so do abilities. They don't posses some magical ability, they just know and understand more. Which they should, it's their profession. I'm probably better at my profession than they are, it's only fair that they should be better at theirs.

I simply disagree they dont know all these endgames from the top of their head. SInce they have already went through the position their intuiton tells them the best moves to play. Which makes almost everything they do accurate. They work through them. Nobody knows every endgame. The 2700s and 2800s create more creative and new ideas. While 2600s also do so its not as consistent and they produce less and see slightly less.

I went to see the US championship, in 2019. I spent much of my time in the analysis room, getting commentary from GM's Eric Hansen and Alejandro Ramirez.

Hansen was very cordial. But Ramirez was obviously miffed at being relegated to the analysis room, while much weaker teenagers were invited to play.

One of these kids was a pawn down in a rook endgame. But both Hansen and Ramirez agreed he had secured the draw.

Suddenly, this kid made a blunder pawn move, and lost. The disgust in Ramirez's voice was obvious. You could tell he was thinking "I got bumped, for this kid??"

dominusdone

Jul 17, 2021

0

#24

varelse1 wrote:

dominusdone wrote:

Kingpatzer wrote:

What they know is chess, plain and simple. There's nothing magic about 2700 compared to 2650 compared to 2600 compared to 1600 besides just incremental increases in the understanding of the game.

Endgames are great example. There are probably 100 technical draws in any of my endgame books that if you give me, I can hold a draw against a GM no matter what. But there are probably 300 technical draws in those books that I'd screw up. The GMs would draw 350 out of 400, and the superGMs would score 390 out of 400.

In my opening books, there are probably 60 or 70 positions that I know and really legitimately understand the resulting position from both the black and white perspective and could play as well as a GM. The GM could probably find 2,000 such positions that they know just as well or better in those same books.

In my tactics books there are hundreds of basic tactic patterns and it takes me a few seconds to see, but there are thousands that it takes me a minute or more to figure out. The GMs are better there too.

And so on and so on.

But as ratings converge, so do abilities. They don't posses some magical ability, they just know and understand more. Which they should, it's their profession. I'm probably better at my profession than they are, it's only fair that they should be better at theirs.

I simply disagree they dont know all these endgames from the top of their head. SInce they have already went through the position their intuiton tells them the best moves to play. Which makes almost everything they do accurate. They work through them. Nobody knows every endgame. The 2700s and 2800s create more creative and new ideas. While 2600s also do so its not as consistent and they produce less and see slightly less.

I went to see the US championship, in 2019. I spent much of my time in the analysis room, getting commentary from GM's Eric Hansen and Alejandro Ramirez.

Hansen was very cordial. But Ramirez was obviously miffed at being relegated to the analysis room, while much weaker teenagers were invited to play.

One of these kids was a pawn down in a rook endgame. But both Hansen and Ramirez agreed he had secured the draw.

Suddenly, this kid made a blunder pawn move, and lost. The disgust in Ramirez's voice was obvious. You could tell he was thinking "I got bumped, for this kid??"

what does that have to do with me again? An extra pawn vs king is an easy endgame to solve

constantcucumber

Jul 17, 2021

0

#25

m_d-man wrote:

They can look at the ceiling and see dozens of options play out in their imagination in only a few moments! Uh, of course that wasn't known 9 years ago when this discussion was started. How far must one dig to break out a 9 year old discussion? /sigh

Ceiling stockfish