Now listed at 2881! So 19 more points to the first 2900 player in history as if 2881 wasn't already a record!
My question is this, supposing a 50% record of draws and wins, in other words, out of ten games he has 5 draws and 5 wins, how many games would it take for him to get that 2900?
Or is that a reasonable draw/win ratio? What if it was 7 draws and 3 wins, could he get there with THAT ratio?
I am talking about one, two, three, four of those 10 game sets, however many it would take.
Anyone can figure that one out?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm not really able to do the maths, but in the last two tournaments he played in he scored +2 in each (one was with two losses and four wins, the other with two losses and two wins). In each case he lost a little bit of rating. I think he really needs to score +3 these days in order to increase his rating (assuming he continues playing elite tournaments and doesn't start taking on 2500 players, in that case he'll be getting practically nothing for a win).
Now listed at 2881! So 19 more points to the first 2900 player in history as if 2881 wasn't already a record!
My question is this, supposing a 50% record of draws and wins, in other words, out of ten games he has 5 draws and 5 wins, how many games would it take for him to get that 2900?
Or is that a reasonable draw/win ratio? What if it was 7 draws a ...[text shortened]... ree, four of those 10 game sets, however many it would take.
Anyone can figure that one out?
If he is going to do it, i think it will be with another Tal memorial sort of result. Last year i think he got +7 or something like that. Interestingly he became the first player ever (along with Nakamura, just!) to break 2900 in an official fide rating. His live blitz rating is 2948 (Nakamura is 2905). 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIt depends on how strong his opponents are. A draw against a 2500 player would take him down by 10 (as I remember), and a win would get him only a few points. To exceed 2,900 he needs games against other super-GMs and to win, 50% draws probably isn't enough.
Now listed at 2881! So 19 more points to the first 2900 player in history as if 2881 wasn't already a record!
My question is this, supposing a 50% record of draws and wins, in other words, out of ten games he has 5 draws and 5 wins, how many games would it take for him to get that 2900?
Or is that a reasonable draw/win ratio? What if it was 7 draws a ...[text shortened]... ree, four of those 10 game sets, however many it would take.
Anyone can figure that one out?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIt wasn't already a record.
Now listed at 2881! So 19 more points to the first 2900 player in history as if 2881 wasn't already a record!
Carlsen set the all-time record of 2889.2 on April 21st. In the past two months, he's slumped all the way down to 2876.9. If he carries on like this, he'll reach my Elo in about 200 years time
Incidentally, 2889 is exactly 100 more than Fischer's best, set 42 years earlier
Originally posted by atticus2Fischer was a sad case. Chess made him and chess destroyed him.
It wasn't already a record.
Carlsen set the all-time record of [b]2889.2 on April 21st. In the past two months, he's slumped all the way down to 2876.9. If he carries on like this, he'll reach my Elo in about 200 years time
Incidentally, 2889 is exactly 100 more than Fischer's best, set 42 years earlier[/b]
- Joined
- 22 Feb 10
- Moves
- 81850
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIf he is rated 2281, he would need to win against someone who is rated at least 2285 in order to advance his rating. Specifically, against a 2285 opponent, the outcomes are:
It depends on how strong his opponents are. A draw against a 2500 player would take him down by 10 (as I remember), and a win would get him only a few points. To exceed 2,900 he needs games against other super-GMs and to win, 50% draws probably isn't enough.
Win: 2882 (Actually 2881.5015)
Draw: 2874
Lose: 2866
I got bored one day and made a spreadsheet from the info at FAQ. 🙂
- Joined
- 22 Feb 10
- Moves
- 81850
Oh, and he will not be able to advance to 2900 in a single game, no matter what the opponent's rating may be. According to the math, winning against someone with a 6100 rating brings him to 2897. Nothing above 6100 alters the math at all. (Well, at least out to 7 decimal places.)
Originally posted by atticus2I've only seen Fischer's best as 2785. Where did/do you see/hear about it being 2789? Nakamura's high is 2789 afaik.
It wasn't already a record.
Carlsen set the all-time record of [b]2889.2 on April 21st. In the past two months, he's slumped all the way down to 2876.9. If he carries on like this, he'll reach my Elo in about 200 years time
Incidentally, 2889 is exactly 100 more than Fischer's best, set 42 years earlier[/b]
Originally posted by ketchuploverBut you are not taking into account the ratings inflation that has also taken place. I have no doubt Fischer's rating would be above 2800 if he was Carlsen's age now.
I've only seen Fischer's best as 2785. Where did/do you see/hear about it being 2789? Nakamura's high is 2789 afaik.
Originally posted by ketchuploverFischer's 2789 is dated 3 Aug 1972, presumably at some point during or after the Spassky match. My data is from 'Living Chess Ratings' which updates daily, including tourneys in progress
I've only seen Fischer's best as 2785. Where did/do you see/hear about it being 2789? Nakamura's high is 2789 afaik.
http://www.2700chess.com/
A note of caution therefore: 'live ratings' are not 'fixed point' (monthly) FIDE ratings. So there may be small discrepancies. That is, a 'live rating' high may reflect in-tourney performance, not end-tourney FIDE summary rating.
Of Fischer's 'high', by any standards it is an astonishing rating, given it was set 42 years ago. Grade inflation since then must be worth most of the 100-pt gap to Carlsen