Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

new.chess24.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 132 posts

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#71

Post by gnulinux »

mda wrote: post #49
franknstein wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Magnus Carlsen: 2864 Elo Stockfish: 3585 Elo "Elo suggested scaling ratings so that a difference of 200 rating points in chess would mean that the stronger player has an expected score (which basically is an expected average score) of approximately 0.75, and the USCF initially aimed for an average club player to have a rating of 1500." I guess that means that Magnus has expected score of roughly 0.25^((3585 - 2864)/2…

Winning chance is basically 0.0% against current strong engines for a human. There are possible draw lines but if engine is configured correctly draw chance is also 0.0%

As some other commenter calculated Stockfish wins in about ~>98% of the cases. The other ~<2% of the cases aren't Magnus winning, rather them drawing. I think no GM is known to beat a modern competitive AI in chess, however there are known/recorded instances of draws.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#72

Post by xtracto »

narag wrote: post #14
mpol wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lichess doesn't use ELO rating but a different rating system. That explains some odditites I've observed, like different strength with the same rating at different hours of the day or different days.

Yes!!! I've long been frustrated by this. I'm around 1800 if I play at certain times, but quickly get down to 1700 when playing at others. For some reason 1700s are stronger during night.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#73

Post by sgjohnson »

tialaramex wrote: post #60
sgjohnson wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That statement is supported by statistics, however, the problem with that statement is that the average chess game is 25 moves . except in top-level classical play. But it's not relevant, because virtually all experts agree that chess is a theoretical draw. It's…

I wonder if there's even a way to be sure of a minimum length? Like suppose I'm White, I know how to play Chess perfectly and so does my opponent. So (if the popular assumption is correct) we will eventually draw, but how many moves can I draw the game out for, assuming my opponent isn't willing to concede, but is trying to shorten the game ?

> but how many moves can I draw the game out for

depends on the position, from not a lot, to 100+ moves.

but don't forget that there are forced draws in chess, namely, repeated position 3 times (doesn't have to be consecutive), 50 move rule (50 moves without a pawn move or a capture), and insufficient material.

So trading off material would shorten the game.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#74

Post by have_faith »

Normille wrote: post #7

I 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…

On chess websites gains and losses swing more extreme until you play enough games to stabilise. It's a modified elo system or elo-adjascent. This way people reach their "true" rating much quicker e.g. a grand master who signs up will reach 2400 over a smaller amount of games than if he could only gain 2 or 3 points for every game. The same goes for the beginner who starts at 1500 but should be 800, he'll reach that quickly and then play against people around his ability.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#76

Post by cowpig »

Normille wrote: post #7

I 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…

The Glicko[0] rating system is different from Elo[1], and it's what Lichess and Chess.com use

In Elo, the rating gain for one player equals the rating loss for another, because each player's rating is the only independent variable.

Glicko calculates a kind of 'certainty', aka 'rating deviation' which is based on the number of games played in some period of time. The idea is that the ratings of players who have not played in a while are more likely to be wrong.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#77

Post by spekcular »

It's worth noting that one of the authors of the cited paper [1] (Nick Polson) is infamous for claiming (incorrectly) a proof of the Riemann hypothesis [2].

This case is somewhat strange because he's not the usual mathematical crank; he's actually a quite well-recognized economics researcher who is clearly mathematically competent. But for some reason he persists. (If you search his name, you can find his YouTube channel where he lectures on his RH work...)

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.09563

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02653.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#79

Post by mattkrause »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #52
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #37

The whole 2900 thing is so strange. ELO is a relative scale. The number only makes sense in relation to the ratings of other. You could shift everyone or scale it differently and it wouldn’t change anything. What a poor goal. I view the whole thing more as a criticism of the sorry state of FIDE and the world championship that an actual serious goal.

One person reaching 2900 when it's not by changing the scale shows their relative position to others is a new record. it's a worthy psychological goal, like breaking a 4 minute mile even though a minute and a mile are made up quantities. Or scoring 300 in bowling, when 10 rounds is arbitrary. Pretty much every record in every sport is arbitrary, yet people like to set goals for motivation.

ELO is a relative measure though, so it's more like winning a highly competitive mile race by 5 or 10 seconds, when the usual gap is usually under a second.

It's still impressive as heck.

One tempting comparison is Usain Bolt, but it feels a little different to me because he dominates both objectively (WR) and versus his competitors.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#80

Post by lake_vincent »

spekcular wrote: post #77

It's worth noting that one of the authors of the cited paper [1] (Nick Polson) is infamous for claiming (incorrectly) a proof of the Riemann hypothesis [2]. This case is somewhat strange because he's not the usual mathematical crank; he's actually a quite well-recognized economics researcher who is clearly mathematically competent. But for some reason he persists. (If you search his name, you can find his YouTube cha…

The abstract kills me.

"A Hadamard factorization of the Riemann Xi-function is constructed to characterize the zeros of the zeta function."

Like, dude, you are claiming to solve a Millennium problem, you're gonna have to put a little more effort into explaining, ya know, the breakthrough...

We care about the Riemann Hypothesis not for the theorem itself, but because the methods used to solve it will surely be revolutionary and it's those methods that are important, not the theorem.

That's what makes it a Millennium problem. So a paper like this immediately shows the author doesn't even understand why the problem is important, let alone its solution.

Post reply on HN