What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?
new.chess24.com
What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?
1–10 of 132 posts
Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?
#2Not by playing on the club level, as pointed out. He'll loose with every draw to such low ranked players. He needs to play a lot of high ranked tournaments, and don't take draws. Excitíng
Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?
#3Even with the hot streak in 2019, his performance rating was 2889, which is not enough. It could have continued for a thousand games and it would not have been enough. He will need more wins against high rated players, even more wins than in 2019.
Quote from the article: "...won every tournament he took part in, scored 32 wins, 47 draws and not a single loss, with a rating performance of 2889."
Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?
#4The issue is that he's going to be trying to maximize his chance for a win, and not his expected points. So the model likely underestimates his chance of success
Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?
#5“The Elo system only measures differences between players, it has nothing to do with absolute player strength.”
But it seems ratings have been deflating lately (https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-elo-ratings-inflation-or-d... is a fun read), so hitting 2900 would be even more impressive!
Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?
#6Not by playing on the club level, as pointed out. He'll loose with every draw to such low ranked players. He needs to play a lot of high ranked tournaments, and don't take draws. Excitíng
It sounds like focusing so hard on the rating might be bad for his quality of life, by preventing him playing 'fun' tournaments.
Edit : He can try to game the ratings system by looking for high-rated opponents who he knows will not play as well as their ratings suggest for some reason (like illness or personal issues). But he doesn't seem the sort to enjoy this
Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?
#7I still can't understand how chess ratings work --even after 'RTFM' and having people try and explain it to me.
Far far below the lofty heights of Carlsen &co., I play a fair bit on Lichess. Sometimes I'll play someone with a similar ranking to myself and beat them and will earn 3 or 4 points. Then we'll have a re-match which I lose and they'll gain 12 or 15 points.
I just can't fathom how them beating me earns them more points than I earn from beating them --if we were on the same or similar rankings to start with. But it almost always seems to pan out this way.
[And I'm not talking about opponents with a '?' after their ranking, which signifies they've not played enough games for the ranking to be accurate yet. I know that, in those circumstances, the rankings can move hugely in either direction].
I've also noticed that there doesn't seem to be any relation between the circumstances of a win and the points awarded. For example, shouldn't a win or draw when playing black earn more points than when playing white --given that white had the advantage of moving first?
And what about the manner of victory? It seems there's no more ranking points to be gained from; snatching a victory where both players ended up down to a single pawn each and the winner just managed to queen one square ahead of the loser... than there are from completely decimating your opponent.
Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?
#8I still can't understand how chess ratings work --even after 'RTFM' and having people try and explain it to me. Far far below the lofty heights of Carlsen &co., I play a fair bit on Lichess. Sometimes I'll play someone with a similar ranking to myself and beat them and will earn 3 or 4 points. Then we'll have a re-match which I lose and they'll gain 12 or 15 points. I just can't fathom how them beating me earns them…
If you have roughly the same rating both of you should be gaining the same amount on a win. However many rating systems have some kind of aging factor. Meaning the more games you play the more stable your rating gets.
So it could be that your opponent has played significantly less games than you. However if he loses he also should lose more points than you would.
The color you play has no influence on the rating numbers. And also the type of win/draw/loss does not matter at all. Ratings are just statistics of your results.
Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?
#9I still can't understand how chess ratings work --even after 'RTFM' and having people try and explain it to me. Far far below the lofty heights of Carlsen &co., I play a fair bit on Lichess. Sometimes I'll play someone with a similar ranking to myself and beat them and will earn 3 or 4 points. Then we'll have a re-match which I lose and they'll gain 12 or 15 points. I just can't fathom how them beating me earns them…
> Far far below the lofty heights of Carlsen &co., I play a fair bit on Lichess. Sometimes I'll play someone with a similar ranking to myself and beat them and will earn 3 or 4 points. Then we'll have a re-match which I lose and they'll gain 12 or 15 points.
I just can't fathom how them beating me earns them more points than I earn from beating them --if we were on the same or similar rankings to start with. But it almost always seems to pan out this way.
Lichess works on a different system than professional ratings. It takes into account the RD (sort of a standard deviation on your rating). Playing against a player with a more stable rating will cause the rating to change more and vice-versa. Professional ratings are always assumed to be stable.
> I've also noticed that there doesn't seem to be any relation between the circumstances of a win and the points awarded. For example, shouldn't a win or draw when playing black earn more points than when playing white --given that white had the advantage of moving first?
This is something that is sometimes used as a tiebreaker in tournaments. Sort of an away goals rule, if you're familiar with soccer. But as far as ratings go, in the long run you're bound to play ~50% of the games with white and ~50% with black, so it smooths out itself.
> And what about the manner of victory? It seems there's no more ranking points to be gained from; snatching a victory where both players ended up down to a single pawn each and the winner just managed to queen one square ahead of the loser... than there are from completely decimating your opponent.
I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense. There are three results: Win - Loss - Draw, everything else is just discourse around the game.
Endgames are something players trade into, reducing to a won endgame is part of the skill involved in the game. Why would that count as less of a win?
Also, material is a pretty stupid way to determine how close a game was. Should I get less rating points because I won with a queen sac?
Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?
#10I still can't understand how chess ratings work --even after 'RTFM' and having people try and explain it to me. Far far below the lofty heights of Carlsen &co., I play a fair bit on Lichess. Sometimes I'll play someone with a similar ranking to myself and beat them and will earn 3 or 4 points. Then we'll have a re-match which I lose and they'll gain 12 or 15 points. I just can't fathom how them beating me earns them…
Lichess doesn't use ELO rating but a different rating system. And yes, I don't understand that difference either.
About white versus black, there is some consensus that after about 20 moves, white's advantage is gone. I doubt that statement is supported by statistics. I guess the rating just assumes everyone plays white and black just as often, so it will even out in the end. (edit) By the way, if you are strong with white and weak with black, how should your ELO rating be calculated? It is only one number, not two. Assuming an average seems fine with me.
And the way a win is made, those are for the beauty contests :)
A simple calculation for ELO is just to see it as both players placing a bet, the K factor is the amount of points in the jar. If the K factor is 25, you have 1600 ELO and I have 1400 ELO, you might put in the jar 16 points, while I put in 9 points. Winner takes the jar, on a draw it is plit in half. Difference between win and draw is always half the K factor. When both players have a different K factor, the calculation for both players will be different, it's not zero sum.