DrawMaster, that really is fascinating, I've never heard that before. It
makes sense that it's exponential if you think about it, because it is so tough
to improve once a certain point is reached.
Does this mean to reach 2800 you can only make an unsafe move every 64 games?
What is the difference between a 1900-2000 player and a 2200-2300 level player?
Sort:
Dec 19, 2009
0
#23
As one proceeds higher in the ratings, such a simple formula would begin to break down, and the number of data points to attempt to verify same would become more scarce. But I'm guessing that Magnus Carlsen (at 2800+ now) doesn't make unsafe moves in any usual sense, at least not in the sense that Dan Heisman is referring to. But I could be wrong; even GMs go chess blind in rare moments (e.g., Fischer's capture of the rook pawn versus Spassky in the 1972 WC).
DrawMaster wrote:
As one proceeds higher in the ratings, such a simple formula would begin to break down, and the number of data points to attempt to verify same would become more scarce. But I'm guessing that Magnus Carlsen (at 2800+ now) doesn't make unsafe moves in any usual sense, at least not in the sense that Dan Heisman is referring to. But I could be wrong; even GMs go chess blind in rare moments (e.g., Fischer's capture of the rook pawn versus Spassky in the 1972 WC).
last World Championship as well.. Kramnik missed a sac at an end of a combo that immediatly forced resignation.
Dec 20, 2009
0
#25
DrawMaster wrote:
We’ll start with a model estimating how many times per game a player might make a move that would give an opponent a basic tactic that would win material:
● 800 rating – sixteen times per game
● 1200 rating – four times per game
● 1600 rating – once per game
● 2000 rating – once every four games
● 2400 rating – once every sixteen games
This model estimates that for every 400 rating points a player is one-fourth as likely to make an unsafe move. It is not based on any specific study, but it will do.
Please bear with me here: A Novice Brain hard at work. 
Players like Magnus Carlsen don't win material to win games. Basic tactics are rarely seen at that level of play. Amazing!
I've listened to Magnus being interviewed in London, going over one of his wins at various critical points in the game. He mostly responded with how he found a position to be unpleasant, or he was happy with a position.
So, what advanced tactics does someone like Magnus employ to make the other person have an unpleasant position, since winning material is perhaps not the goal for winning the game. It must be real subtle, sneaky stuff.
Dec 20, 2009
0
#26
To be honest, the top super GM's (+2600) operate on a different chess level to all (most) of us! However, they do occasionally miss basic tactics (e.g Christiansen - Karpov ; where Karpov fell in to a simple double attack and lost a piece, then resigned).
Musikamole wrote:
DrawMaster wrote:
We’ll start with a model estimating how many times per game a player might make a move that would give an opponent a basic tactic that would win material:
● 800 rating – sixteen times per game
● 1200 rating – four times per game
● 1600 rating – once per game
● 2000 rating – once every four games
● 2400 rating – once every sixteen games
This model estimates that for every 400 rating points a player is one-fourth as likely to make an unsafe move. It is not based on any specific study, but it will do.
Please bear with me here: A Novice Brain hard at work.
Players like Magnus Carlsen don't win material to win games. Basic tactics are rarely seen at that level of play. Amazing!
I've listened to Magnus being interviewed in London, going over one of his wins at various critical points in the game. He mostly responded with how he found a position to be unpleasant, or he was happy with a position.
So, what advanced tactics does someone like Magnus employ to make the other person have an unpleasant position, since winning material is perhaps not the goal for winning the game. It must be real subtle, sneaky stuff.
Asking what tactics Magnus uses to make the position unpleasant or pleasent is the wrong idea. GMs intensely concentrate on what's going on positionally. I'm sure you heard Carlsen say something like, after bishop to here I could move my knight there and then after the pawns moves here it was good/bad. None of it involved tactics or even a capture, it was all positional manuvering.
Not that tactics played didn't a roll behind the scenes. But I think this is one reason you see a super GM make an obvious tactical blunder every now and then -- they look so deeply they forget the surface stuff. Obviously they're also very aware of tactics, but their tactics usually involve tactics to win a better position not tactics to win a knight for example.
An interesting grading scheme (not meant to be truly quantitative) was given by Dan Heisman a couple months back in one of his Novice Nook articles. Here, I quote:
We’ll start with a model estimating how many times per game a player might make a move that would give an opponent a basic tactic that would win material:
● 800 rating – sixteen times per game
● 1200 rating – four times per game
● 1600 rating – once per game
● 2000 rating – once every four games
● 2400 rating – once every sixteen games
This model estimates that for every 400 rating points a player is one-fourth as likely to make an unsafe move. It is not based on any specific study, but it will do.
This descriptive system alludes to the notion of the tactical vision strength differences between the 2000 and the 2400-rated player. Interesting, yes?