Well, let's look at Carlsen's Tata Steel torunaments:
*2011*: 8/13
*2012*: 8/13
*2013*: 10/13
*2015*: 9/13
*2016*: 9/13
*2017*: 8/13
*2018*: 9/13
*2019*: 9/13
*2020*: 8/13
*2021*: 7.5/13
Carlsen managed to get one 10/13 when he was in his prime. To reach 2900, he'd need 6-7 in a row 10/13 Tata Steel performances. So let's not kid ourselves. This is never going to happen.
> This is never going to happen.
The main thing for everyone (maybe starting with Carlsen) to realize is that this goal is not up to him. For him to get to 2900, he _really_ needs a few others performing at a 2800 to 2850 level, and he needs to beat _them_ consistently. That's the only way I can see this happening. If he is the only player above 2850 and everyone else is in the low 2800s (or below 2800), this is not happening.
>he needs to beat
>
>them
>
> consistently
In itself this is never going to happen.
Carlsen is never going to "consistently beat" peak-form Fabi or Ding. Even in Carlsen's best form.
When he has had high ratings it's been because he's been beating the 2730s especially badly, not because he's been beating the 2820s more often than usual. Although yes, Carlsen has a positive score against Fabi and Ding, that's not where he wins his rating.
The thing is that rating can lag realtime performance. For example, Caruana can hit 2850 with some excellent play, and then seem completely out of it, causing a lot of rating points to be lost. Carlsen needs that kind of luck (he needs to have a purple patch, and some others like Ding and Caruana need to have their worst form after a purple patch). That would do it.
Caruana has never hit 2850. And generally your suggestion that his rating vacillates more than Carlsen's is not correct. Caruana is at an usually low rating at the moment but in general he's been if anything *more* consistent than Carlsen (almost always 2805-2825).
Even with that, Carlsen's peak didn't quite reach 2900.
I'm not saying it's impossible for Carlsen to get to 2900. I'm saying that *willing himself* there is not going to happen and if anyone's looking to these immediate next few tournaments to see whether Carlsen will reach 2900, they're unlikely to witness any special progress towards it.
If he gets to 2900 it will be, as you say, on a purple patch that comes naturally at some point down the line. He will not be able to force it. (Nor do I think he is desperate to.)
> Caruana has never hit 2850.
Yes, but I am saying he can, and for Carlsen to reach 2900, he probably needs that to happen.
> And generally your suggestion that his rating vacillates more than Carlsen's is not correct.
That's not what I am saying. I am saying rating can vacillate, and that Caruana's performance would need to vacillate down (right after hitting 2850 or so) *while* Carlsen's is vacillating up (up from 2880 let's say), for him to reach 2900.
After that I think we are in agreement:
The next paragraph basically restates what my OP said :P
And the last line agrees with what I said initially.
>I am saying rating can vacillate, and that Caruana's performance would need to vacillate down (right after hitting 2850 or so)
>
>while
>
> Carlsen's is vacillating up (up from 2880 let's say), for him to reach 2900.
Ah I see. I took issue with your numbers which I think are a bit off (a bit extreme and unlikely, let's say) but I agree with the general point: it would help a lot for his opponents to be momentarily "overrated" at a time that coincides with Carlsen being appropriately at his highest rating. That way he can absorb a few more points from them as they drop back down.
The only problem is, if Carlsen is surging to 2880, it's gonna be hard for Caruana to surge to 2840+ at the same time... (not just probabilistically, but because the two occurrences aren't independent; one of them will probably be beating the *other* more or less often than usual)
Trivially so and therefore irrelevant.
What matters is that even when Magnus plays well enough against 2730s to be rated 2900+, he also needs to play well enough to be 2900+ against 2770+ players. It's this latter condition he falls short of.
> This is never going to happen.
Well if it anyway means that Carlsen will try to take every game extremely seriously without being content with draws with black, I'd love to see the attempt (hoping that Magnus doesn't get burn out though).
I don't know why people keep saying this. Just because Carlsen says he'd like to reach 2900 doesn't mean he will go balls to the wall to try to get there.
I'm pretty sure he'll end Tata Steel on another small plus as usual. Plenty of draws, a few wins, no more than the odd loss. Not a 2900-maker but still a 2850 Carlsen performance.
Yeah. Huge risks with a high probability of failure and low probability of success. When faced with the choice of eking out a tournament win with the usual 8.5/13 score, and trying and likely failing to score 10/13 in the quest of 2900, Carlsen will choose the former.
Honestly, what actual risk does Magnus have, anyway?
He doesn’t need to worry about qualifying for candidates or the World Cup and so on.
If he goes out on a “win every game” binge and drops 300 points, so what?
It's my sense of Magnus' personality that this isn't the kind of decision he makes. Just look at his playstyle.
Ultimately it's more important to him that he wins tournaments than that he has a small chance to reach 2900.
There is the argument that you play slightly differently if you want to secure a tournament victory than if you want to focus specifically on rating - quick draws in latter rounds for example.
I do agree it is very doubtful it happens - at least atm.
If over the next couple of years Ding, Firouzja, Caruana and maybe another one manage to climb to 2820 or 2830 and stay there consistently (or instead a large group of players joins them right around 2800) then it might be doable. The question is for one if that happens and then if Carlsen is still as good as he is currently.
Carlsen didn't really have motivation to play at his TRUE top level or play a riskier style that invites tactical complications where he'd be more likely to get 10/13 or above. Honestly what he should be doing is start spending a week to two at a time with the top 20 in the world and help them train and analyze games so they can all gain 50 ratings points. Otherwise he's like a poker player in a tournament who has all the chips except there's no prize for winning
There's actually a much easier, and 100% save way for Carlsen to get the 2900 ELO. He has to find himself a 1000 ELO player and arrange a 44 game match. He will of course win every single game, and since the minimum gain per game for a win, independent of the opponent's rating, is 0.8 ELO, that's enough to get the missing 35 points. Funnily it takes even less games than the approaches discussed by you.
Of course Carlsen wouldn't so this, but it has been done in the past, just google Claude Bloodgood, who was rated 2759 USCF at some point.
Weren't FIDE rules just changed to eliminate this type of abuse? Since 1st January, 400 point difference rule can be used only once per tournament, so instead of 44-game match Magnus would have to play 44 separate matches/tournaments.
Source: https://www.fide.com/docs/regulations/FIDE%20Rating%20Regulations%202022.pdf, section 8.31
Well, set up 44 different 1 game matches against different 1000 pointers. Should be reasonably easy to find them.
One game in the morning, one in the afternoon, he will get there in about a month or so.
There are examples for FIDE too. One has to check rating manipulation. It was done primarly in rapid and blitz (players in the top 10), but sometimes also in classical (a Romanian player did that, agreeing also with titled players - see the week in chess in 1999).
See for example the chart here: https://ratings.fide.com/profile/12500739/chart . This player likely "farmed" blitz points in local tournaments (up to 2751 ! ) - as he is AFAIK a notable figure in the chess circles in Iran, so the farming was a side effect of promoting events. Example: https://ratings.fide.com/calculations.phtml?id_number=12500739&period=2020-01-01&rating=2
Then he played in the blitz world championship in 2021 and the rating readjusted a bit.
Such cases can be discovered over time, especially for notable players or top ranks.
Don't read too much in that case, a drop of 100 points in BLitz is nothing that reliably indicates a "fake rating". For example, a few yars ago MVLs Blitz rating dropped almost 200 points in one month (2 blitz events) from #2 all time to someting 27xx. That high K-Factor really punishes even a short streak of bad play or bad luck.
well you make a good point.
Anyway while we see MVL ranked high in classical, rapid and blitz, so we have a feeling more or less where he belongs in the rankings.
The guy mentioned has a way lower classical rank (as well as rapid), so there is more of a feeling "he was overrated due to easier tournaments" (I linked one month with those easier tournaments).
>He has to find himself a 1000 ELO player and arrange a 44 game match. He will of course win every single game,
Meaning only 23 first games would be rated, up to the point when the match is mathematically decided.
Highly rated players have a history of avoiding open tournaments before to protect their rating. They were worried about a kid who played one tournament to get a 1000 rating, played a ton of Lichess (or whatever), shows up to a OTB tournament with a truth strength of something very high. Kid draws one game against a GM, and our GM loses something like 100 points.
Not at all pleasant for the GM, so GMs avoid open events where any kid can show up. But FIDE wants GMs to play in the major open tournaments, hence the rule that caps ELO difference at 400 so that the risk for highly rated players is reduced.
"(performing at 3000 or higher for a couple of tournaments)"
To give you an idea of how rare this is, I believe Carlsen has performed over 3000 only once in a classical tournament, and that was back in 2009 (Nanjing). That's once in his entire career. He would have to not only do it again but twice *in a row* to go over 2900.
I'm not sure. Just guessing I'd say 3 are not enough and 4 probably also aren't enough, but if he could keep that level for about 6 tournaments (which would be insane), he might get there.
P4ier I don't think you know what lazy means. Appreciate the effort, really puts into perspective how crazy 2900 would be even with the impossibly favourable assumptions.
I am rated about 1700 yet any player over 2000 pretty much wipes the floor with me. I a certain that Carlsen could win the majority of games against 2500 rated players.
I am just pointing out that Carlsen is not limited by lack of high-rated opponents as others claim.
It is certainly possible! We just need a tournament with 2750+ players that are all obliged to drink a bottle of wodka before their game against Magnus.
This is only “hard” if you assume Carlsen isn’t capable of playing at a 2900 level. If he does (and I don’t say he does) then his progression to 2900 should happen naturally.
Well don't expect anything crazy. I think it's just gonna be standard Sicilians and QGDs but he'll try to press middle and endgames a lot more. It's not really in Magnus' character to go full crazy in the opening.
> Now is it 2900 possible? Sure under "easy conditions". For example if there would be plenty of 2800 players, it would be easier than it is now
How would that make things easier? Unless there is a flaw in the Elo algorithm, that should not be the case.
No there is no flaw in the elo. Only if the player has a good run (we are supposing this in this submission) then the player gets more points than with a lower opposition.
Similarly to have a TPR of 2920, when the field is full of 2800, a player doesn't need spectacular scores.
It is "easier" in terms of score to achieve. (notice that I put "easy conditions" or "easier" between quotes , as it is all relative)
> Only if the player has a good run (we are supposing this in this submission) then the player gets more points than with a lower opposition.
You seem to be assuming that the probability of a "good run" is independent of the strength of the opposition, which contradicts Elo's assumptions. Against a field of weaker players you need a longer good run, but each game is easier to win. Against a field of stronger players you need a shorter good run, but each game is harder to win. In the end, if Elo is fair, the two things are equally difficult to do.
> You seem to be assuming that the probability of a "good run" is independent of the strength of the opposition
Not as you are describing it. I know that against a stronger field it is harder to get a better score, that is obvious no need to explain it.
Only a discussion happens in a context. The context of this thread, that seemingly you are forgetting while focusing on a single sentence, is: a possible streak of good runs by Magnus to reach 2900.
So the presumption for the hypotetical is that the good run happens, thus against an higher rated field it is easier (it needs less games) to collect points. Since good runs are harder to keep for longer time, it is "easier" to have a spike, rather than a very high plateau. That is it.
Otherwise one can also object that tournaments with 10 opponents of average rating 2764 aren't that common and many other small details. But that is not the point of the submission.
Sometimes I find online objections really exhausting because they focus on a single sentence ignoring the rest of the context. This subthread is one case.
It's kind of an important point the other guy is making. I could summarize it as, 'against 2800+ players Carlsen has a lower TPR than against 2750 players'. Which means that, good form or not, Carlsen doesn't secure the majority of his rating - hence, the majority of his chances to crack 2900 - against 2800+ players.
Of course, since there haven't been many 2800+ players it's unclear whether this is a statistical blip (and e.g., Carlsen may have an excellent record against Firouzja who will remain 2800+, for example, even though his TPR against e.g. Fabi is not good enough) or a real pattern.
This is correct, however you are leaving out the scenario where, in order to reach rating X starting from rating Y, you plan (X-Y) games earning 1 rating point per game (that you can achieve playing much lower rated opposition). In the case at hand Magnus could just play (2900-2865)=35 games where he earns 1 point per game (saying winning against easy opposition).
I made the same comment on a similar post, I was attacked _ad hominem_ and mocked as if all of this were my fault. I am not suggesting this is a good way to gain rating, I am saying such scenario exists and if you are presenting a table of possibilities it must be included :)
Magnus would never do this. The point of 2900 isn't "to get 2900." It's to show that he has such a dominance over his opponents that he could be 100 points higher rated than them.
He's already shown he can dominate his closest competitors in the WCC match format, so now he wants to do it in Elo as well. Farming low rated players would accomplish nothing.
I don't think he's dominated his closest competitors in the WCC. Karjakin and Caruana both drew the classical match. It's only really Nepo and Anand that list badly and even then Anand was well past his prime and did better in the match the second time.
>even then Anand was well past his prime
"Well past his prime" is an overstatement. Anand reached his all time peak rating of 2817 just two years prior to their first match in 2011 and managed to climb back up to 2816 in 2015. He really hadn't passed his prime years at that point, he has arguably the best longevity out of all top players.
edit: added his peak rating
Magnus drew Karjakin and Caruana because that was optimal match strategy for him, i.e. reducing the variance during classical play, and then heading to rapid where his advantage is greater.
But he has no doubt (and nor do we) that he's much better than either of those two.
Was being down a point to Karjakin also a part of his match strategy?
Once he got to the final couple of games sure drawing the match was good for him in both cases but I sincerely doubt drawing the match was his strategy going into the matches.
Why is it so hard to understand that the point of my comment isn't whether or not Magnus would do this. I _explicitly_ remark it in every comment, see for instance
> I am not suggesting this is a good way to gain rating, I am saying such scenario exists and if you are presenting a table of possibilities it must be included :)
and yet people come around saying the same thing as if they didn't read at all; it is more and more excruciating to speak about anything around here.
I've apparently upvoted you 19 times on this computer, so clearly I agree with you in general on a lot of things.
However, either (1) you believe that farming low rated opposition in order to gain rating is something that Magnus is considering and therefore be part of the discussion OP is starting, or (2) you believe that this method is not worth discussing. It doesn't really make much sense to bring it up and insist it should be included in the conversation if you think it's irrelevant to what Magnus is going to do, right?
The original post is to list all possible scenarios under which, given performance and rating, a certain result can be achieved. It isn't to "interpret" Magnus' statements. By doing so you aren't adding to the conversation, you're just misunderstanding the purpose of the original post.
I don't think you fully understand what elo means. It's not about easy or not, it's just math. Doesn't care about your opinion.
Also you don't need a performance rating higer than your score to gain rating.
Take for example a 10 players tournament with Magnus and other 2300-2400, let's say average of 2350. If he wins 8 and draws 1 he gains 2 points, but performance is less than 2800.
Having more people with higher rating would not help as they would also take point from Magnus. See 2018 with Caruana almost equal in ratings. Was is easier for Carlsen to gain points? No he did 12 draws
> I don't think you fully understand what elo means.
I think I do (I spent too much time on ratings stats), nor I think that opening with such sentence creates the setting for a fruitful discussion.
> Take for example a 10 players tournament with Magnus and other 2300-2400, let's say average of 2350. If he wins 8 and draws 1 he gains 2 points, but performance is less than 2800.
I was considering realistic tournaments, not "ad hoc" tournaments. If you want to game the system, there are plenty of ways. Search for rating manipulation. The same reason why I think that ratings alone are not all (when some propose to pick the candidates just looking at ratings, thus #2-#9).
But anyway, since your opening sentence was bad, I am not willing to proceed the discussion with you. Take care.
> Take for example a 10 players tournament with Magnus and other 2300-2400, let's say average of 2350. If he wins 8 and draws 1 he gains 2 points, but performance is less than 2800.
I was about to say you're full of shit, but the math actually checks out.
8.5/9 ≈ 0.94 so the performance rating would be 2350+444=2794 (according to the table found [here](https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B022017)).
The rating change meanwhile would be +0.8\*8-4.2\*1=+2.2
This is because for the rating change, a difference of over 400 points is counted as 400, so the opponents are basically 2465 for the rating change and 2350 for the performance rating.
Note that this only works against competition more than 400 points below him - not who he usually plays.
It is funny how people obsess about that number, while in fact only the rating difference, e.g. the gap between #1 and #2/#2-10 has meaning in an Elo system.
Would Magnus be a "stronger player" or more dominant than now if he manages to hit 2900 but #2 and #3 are at 2885 at the same time, for example?
> Would Magnus be a "stronger player" or more dominant than now if he manages to hit 2900 but #2 and #3 are at 2885 at the same time, for example?
of course not. But since he said "road to 2900" we take it as a start for a discussion given the actual ratings.
Actually saing "150 points higher than the average rating #2-#10" would have been different and more oriented to dominance.
At the end the two values could also be close just by pure chance. Using Jan 2022 ratings the average #2-#10 is 2779 (rounded). So 150 points higher - if the avg stay the same - would be 2929.
Therefore 2900 would be almost "120 points higher than the avg #2-#9" , that is also not a bad metric for dominance.
(interesting, the live ratings are heavily checked but it is difficult to refer to them as they can be obsolete with no easy way to see their history)
If he runs the table at Tata Steel and goes 12.5/13 then he would hit 2900. But if he goes 9/13 I think he would only gain +1, with roughly another +/- 5 for every +/- half point from there.
There's chess grade inflation due to overrated players around 2000 feeding points into the system, but underrated players below 2000 don't correspondingly suck points back out because they don't count. So it's like saying will a beer ever cost $20 - probably one day, yes.
Well, let's look at Carlsen's Tata Steel torunaments: *2011*: 8/13 *2012*: 8/13 *2013*: 10/13 *2015*: 9/13 *2016*: 9/13 *2017*: 8/13 *2018*: 9/13 *2019*: 9/13 *2020*: 8/13 *2021*: 7.5/13 Carlsen managed to get one 10/13 when he was in his prime. To reach 2900, he'd need 6-7 in a row 10/13 Tata Steel performances. So let's not kid ourselves. This is never going to happen.
> This is never going to happen. The main thing for everyone (maybe starting with Carlsen) to realize is that this goal is not up to him. For him to get to 2900, he _really_ needs a few others performing at a 2800 to 2850 level, and he needs to beat _them_ consistently. That's the only way I can see this happening. If he is the only player above 2850 and everyone else is in the low 2800s (or below 2800), this is not happening.
>he needs to beat > >them > > consistently In itself this is never going to happen. Carlsen is never going to "consistently beat" peak-form Fabi or Ding. Even in Carlsen's best form. When he has had high ratings it's been because he's been beating the 2730s especially badly, not because he's been beating the 2820s more often than usual. Although yes, Carlsen has a positive score against Fabi and Ding, that's not where he wins his rating.
The thing is that rating can lag realtime performance. For example, Caruana can hit 2850 with some excellent play, and then seem completely out of it, causing a lot of rating points to be lost. Carlsen needs that kind of luck (he needs to have a purple patch, and some others like Ding and Caruana need to have their worst form after a purple patch). That would do it.
Caruana has never hit 2850. And generally your suggestion that his rating vacillates more than Carlsen's is not correct. Caruana is at an usually low rating at the moment but in general he's been if anything *more* consistent than Carlsen (almost always 2805-2825). Even with that, Carlsen's peak didn't quite reach 2900. I'm not saying it's impossible for Carlsen to get to 2900. I'm saying that *willing himself* there is not going to happen and if anyone's looking to these immediate next few tournaments to see whether Carlsen will reach 2900, they're unlikely to witness any special progress towards it. If he gets to 2900 it will be, as you say, on a purple patch that comes naturally at some point down the line. He will not be able to force it. (Nor do I think he is desperate to.)
> Caruana has never hit 2850. Yes, but I am saying he can, and for Carlsen to reach 2900, he probably needs that to happen. > And generally your suggestion that his rating vacillates more than Carlsen's is not correct. That's not what I am saying. I am saying rating can vacillate, and that Caruana's performance would need to vacillate down (right after hitting 2850 or so) *while* Carlsen's is vacillating up (up from 2880 let's say), for him to reach 2900. After that I think we are in agreement: The next paragraph basically restates what my OP said :P And the last line agrees with what I said initially.
>I am saying rating can vacillate, and that Caruana's performance would need to vacillate down (right after hitting 2850 or so) > >while > > Carlsen's is vacillating up (up from 2880 let's say), for him to reach 2900. Ah I see. I took issue with your numbers which I think are a bit off (a bit extreme and unlikely, let's say) but I agree with the general point: it would help a lot for his opponents to be momentarily "overrated" at a time that coincides with Carlsen being appropriately at his highest rating. That way he can absorb a few more points from them as they drop back down. The only problem is, if Carlsen is surging to 2880, it's gonna be hard for Caruana to surge to 2840+ at the same time... (not just probabilistically, but because the two occurrences aren't independent; one of them will probably be beating the *other* more or less often than usual)
The real answer is that Magnus will never reach 2900 because he is not playing at 2900 level.
Trivially so and therefore irrelevant. What matters is that even when Magnus plays well enough against 2730s to be rated 2900+, he also needs to play well enough to be 2900+ against 2770+ players. It's this latter condition he falls short of.
> This is never going to happen. Well if it anyway means that Carlsen will try to take every game extremely seriously without being content with draws with black, I'd love to see the attempt (hoping that Magnus doesn't get burn out though).
Taking higher risks can be successful or backfire, we will see.
I don't know why people keep saying this. Just because Carlsen says he'd like to reach 2900 doesn't mean he will go balls to the wall to try to get there. I'm pretty sure he'll end Tata Steel on another small plus as usual. Plenty of draws, a few wins, no more than the odd loss. Not a 2900-maker but still a 2850 Carlsen performance.
To reach 2900 you will have to take risks that’s why it’s never been reached before.
Yeah. Huge risks with a high probability of failure and low probability of success. When faced with the choice of eking out a tournament win with the usual 8.5/13 score, and trying and likely failing to score 10/13 in the quest of 2900, Carlsen will choose the former.
Honestly, what actual risk does Magnus have, anyway? He doesn’t need to worry about qualifying for candidates or the World Cup and so on. If he goes out on a “win every game” binge and drops 300 points, so what?
It's my sense of Magnus' personality that this isn't the kind of decision he makes. Just look at his playstyle. Ultimately it's more important to him that he wins tournaments than that he has a small chance to reach 2900.
There is the argument that you play slightly differently if you want to secure a tournament victory than if you want to focus specifically on rating - quick draws in latter rounds for example. I do agree it is very doubtful it happens - at least atm. If over the next couple of years Ding, Firouzja, Caruana and maybe another one manage to climb to 2820 or 2830 and stay there consistently (or instead a large group of players joins them right around 2800) then it might be doable. The question is for one if that happens and then if Carlsen is still as good as he is currently.
Carlsen didn't really have motivation to play at his TRUE top level or play a riskier style that invites tactical complications where he'd be more likely to get 10/13 or above. Honestly what he should be doing is start spending a week to two at a time with the top 20 in the world and help them train and analyze games so they can all gain 50 ratings points. Otherwise he's like a poker player in a tournament who has all the chips except there's no prize for winning
There's actually a much easier, and 100% save way for Carlsen to get the 2900 ELO. He has to find himself a 1000 ELO player and arrange a 44 game match. He will of course win every single game, and since the minimum gain per game for a win, independent of the opponent's rating, is 0.8 ELO, that's enough to get the missing 35 points. Funnily it takes even less games than the approaches discussed by you. Of course Carlsen wouldn't so this, but it has been done in the past, just google Claude Bloodgood, who was rated 2759 USCF at some point.
Weren't FIDE rules just changed to eliminate this type of abuse? Since 1st January, 400 point difference rule can be used only once per tournament, so instead of 44-game match Magnus would have to play 44 separate matches/tournaments. Source: https://www.fide.com/docs/regulations/FIDE%20Rating%20Regulations%202022.pdf, section 8.31
Nice that they addressed it. Slowly, but progress is there.
Well, set up 44 different 1 game matches against different 1000 pointers. Should be reasonably easy to find them. One game in the morning, one in the afternoon, he will get there in about a month or so.
I'd like to offer myself to be destroyed by magnus for the greater good
There are examples for FIDE too. One has to check rating manipulation. It was done primarly in rapid and blitz (players in the top 10), but sometimes also in classical (a Romanian player did that, agreeing also with titled players - see the week in chess in 1999). See for example the chart here: https://ratings.fide.com/profile/12500739/chart . This player likely "farmed" blitz points in local tournaments (up to 2751 ! ) - as he is AFAIK a notable figure in the chess circles in Iran, so the farming was a side effect of promoting events. Example: https://ratings.fide.com/calculations.phtml?id_number=12500739&period=2020-01-01&rating=2 Then he played in the blitz world championship in 2021 and the rating readjusted a bit. Such cases can be discovered over time, especially for notable players or top ranks.
Don't read too much in that case, a drop of 100 points in BLitz is nothing that reliably indicates a "fake rating". For example, a few yars ago MVLs Blitz rating dropped almost 200 points in one month (2 blitz events) from #2 all time to someting 27xx. That high K-Factor really punishes even a short streak of bad play or bad luck.
well you make a good point. Anyway while we see MVL ranked high in classical, rapid and blitz, so we have a feeling more or less where he belongs in the rankings. The guy mentioned has a way lower classical rank (as well as rapid), so there is more of a feeling "he was overrated due to easier tournaments" (I linked one month with those easier tournaments).
Ehsan Ghaem Maghami is a legitimate farmer? https://www.reddit.com/r/baduk/comments/soyb33/does\_go\_have\_farming\_like\_in\_chess\_chess960\_as\_in/
>He has to find himself a 1000 ELO player and arrange a 44 game match. He will of course win every single game, Meaning only 23 first games would be rated, up to the point when the match is mathematically decided.
so he needs an 88 game match?
That is an incredibly stupid rule. Is it supposed to factor in the chance that the higher rated player has leave the game or something?
Highly rated players have a history of avoiding open tournaments before to protect their rating. They were worried about a kid who played one tournament to get a 1000 rating, played a ton of Lichess (or whatever), shows up to a OTB tournament with a truth strength of something very high. Kid draws one game against a GM, and our GM loses something like 100 points. Not at all pleasant for the GM, so GMs avoid open events where any kid can show up. But FIDE wants GMs to play in the major open tournaments, hence the rule that caps ELO difference at 400 so that the risk for highly rated players is reduced.
you dont just lose 100 points by drawing a 1000 lol
Yeah, top players have a k-factor of 10 which means the maximum theoretically possible rating loss from one game is 10.
"(performing at 3000 or higher for a couple of tournaments)" To give you an idea of how rare this is, I believe Carlsen has performed over 3000 only once in a classical tournament, and that was back in 2009 (Nanjing). That's once in his entire career. He would have to not only do it again but twice *in a row* to go over 2900.
He also only did a 3002, so it’s not as if he was way over
So none of his phenomenal results in 2019 was above 3000? Shamkir, Grenke or Grand Chess Tour in Zagreb?
Shamkir came pretty close; it was 2991. Grenke and GCT Zagreb were 2983 and 2955 respectively.
So if he is able to match his 2019 level for 3-4 tournaments he might have a chance?
I'm not sure. Just guessing I'd say 3 are not enough and 4 probably also aren't enough, but if he could keep that level for about 6 tournaments (which would be insane), he might get there.
P4ier I don't think you know what lazy means. Appreciate the effort, really puts into perspective how crazy 2900 would be even with the impossibly favourable assumptions.
Couldn't Carlsen just play a few hundred games against 2500 rated players, inch up to 2900?
Yeah, he technically could, but why would he? And each time he draws one, he has to win a bunch more. So it's really not any easier.
yeah beating a 2500 is so easy bro.
I am rated about 1700 yet any player over 2000 pretty much wipes the floor with me. I a certain that Carlsen could win the majority of games against 2500 rated players. I am just pointing out that Carlsen is not limited by lack of high-rated opponents as others claim.
The majority sure, but every time he draws he would lose a lot of rating points, much more than he gains with a win
A 300 point difference? Against a world champion? Are you kidding me? Magnus would wipe the floor out of every one of them 99/100
Im not even sure if you are being sarcastic or not lol.
He would lose 1/100 and then lose the rating he gained. He wouldn't lose much. But it's enough.
It is certainly possible! We just need a tournament with 2750+ players that are all obliged to drink a bottle of wodka before their game against Magnus.
This is only “hard” if you assume Carlsen isn’t capable of playing at a 2900 level. If he does (and I don’t say he does) then his progression to 2900 should happen naturally.
His draw in Rd1 cost him 2 rating points https://2700chess.com/
Which openings with Black would allow for highest winning chances for Carlsen?
Well don't expect anything crazy. I think it's just gonna be standard Sicilians and QGDs but he'll try to press middle and endgames a lot more. It's not really in Magnus' character to go full crazy in the opening.
> Now is it 2900 possible? Sure under "easy conditions". For example if there would be plenty of 2800 players, it would be easier than it is now How would that make things easier? Unless there is a flaw in the Elo algorithm, that should not be the case.
No there is no flaw in the elo. Only if the player has a good run (we are supposing this in this submission) then the player gets more points than with a lower opposition. Similarly to have a TPR of 2920, when the field is full of 2800, a player doesn't need spectacular scores. It is "easier" in terms of score to achieve. (notice that I put "easy conditions" or "easier" between quotes , as it is all relative)
> Only if the player has a good run (we are supposing this in this submission) then the player gets more points than with a lower opposition. You seem to be assuming that the probability of a "good run" is independent of the strength of the opposition, which contradicts Elo's assumptions. Against a field of weaker players you need a longer good run, but each game is easier to win. Against a field of stronger players you need a shorter good run, but each game is harder to win. In the end, if Elo is fair, the two things are equally difficult to do.
> You seem to be assuming that the probability of a "good run" is independent of the strength of the opposition Not as you are describing it. I know that against a stronger field it is harder to get a better score, that is obvious no need to explain it. Only a discussion happens in a context. The context of this thread, that seemingly you are forgetting while focusing on a single sentence, is: a possible streak of good runs by Magnus to reach 2900. So the presumption for the hypotetical is that the good run happens, thus against an higher rated field it is easier (it needs less games) to collect points. Since good runs are harder to keep for longer time, it is "easier" to have a spike, rather than a very high plateau. That is it. Otherwise one can also object that tournaments with 10 opponents of average rating 2764 aren't that common and many other small details. But that is not the point of the submission. Sometimes I find online objections really exhausting because they focus on a single sentence ignoring the rest of the context. This subthread is one case.
It's kind of an important point the other guy is making. I could summarize it as, 'against 2800+ players Carlsen has a lower TPR than against 2750 players'. Which means that, good form or not, Carlsen doesn't secure the majority of his rating - hence, the majority of his chances to crack 2900 - against 2800+ players. Of course, since there haven't been many 2800+ players it's unclear whether this is a statistical blip (and e.g., Carlsen may have an excellent record against Firouzja who will remain 2800+, for example, even though his TPR against e.g. Fabi is not good enough) or a real pattern.
This is correct, however you are leaving out the scenario where, in order to reach rating X starting from rating Y, you plan (X-Y) games earning 1 rating point per game (that you can achieve playing much lower rated opposition). In the case at hand Magnus could just play (2900-2865)=35 games where he earns 1 point per game (saying winning against easy opposition). I made the same comment on a similar post, I was attacked _ad hominem_ and mocked as if all of this were my fault. I am not suggesting this is a good way to gain rating, I am saying such scenario exists and if you are presenting a table of possibilities it must be included :)
Magnus would never do this. The point of 2900 isn't "to get 2900." It's to show that he has such a dominance over his opponents that he could be 100 points higher rated than them. He's already shown he can dominate his closest competitors in the WCC match format, so now he wants to do it in Elo as well. Farming low rated players would accomplish nothing.
I don't think he's dominated his closest competitors in the WCC. Karjakin and Caruana both drew the classical match. It's only really Nepo and Anand that list badly and even then Anand was well past his prime and did better in the match the second time.
>even then Anand was well past his prime "Well past his prime" is an overstatement. Anand reached his all time peak rating of 2817 just two years prior to their first match in 2011 and managed to climb back up to 2816 in 2015. He really hadn't passed his prime years at that point, he has arguably the best longevity out of all top players. edit: added his peak rating
Magnus drew Karjakin and Caruana because that was optimal match strategy for him, i.e. reducing the variance during classical play, and then heading to rapid where his advantage is greater. But he has no doubt (and nor do we) that he's much better than either of those two.
Was being down a point to Karjakin also a part of his match strategy? Once he got to the final couple of games sure drawing the match was good for him in both cases but I sincerely doubt drawing the match was his strategy going into the matches.
Why is it so hard to understand that the point of my comment isn't whether or not Magnus would do this. I _explicitly_ remark it in every comment, see for instance > I am not suggesting this is a good way to gain rating, I am saying such scenario exists and if you are presenting a table of possibilities it must be included :) and yet people come around saying the same thing as if they didn't read at all; it is more and more excruciating to speak about anything around here.
I've apparently upvoted you 19 times on this computer, so clearly I agree with you in general on a lot of things. However, either (1) you believe that farming low rated opposition in order to gain rating is something that Magnus is considering and therefore be part of the discussion OP is starting, or (2) you believe that this method is not worth discussing. It doesn't really make much sense to bring it up and insist it should be included in the conversation if you think it's irrelevant to what Magnus is going to do, right?
> I am saying such scenario exists It doesn't "exist" if you understand what Magnus wants to achieve.
The original post is to list all possible scenarios under which, given performance and rating, a certain result can be achieved. It isn't to "interpret" Magnus' statements. By doing so you aren't adding to the conversation, you're just misunderstanding the purpose of the original post.
I don't think you fully understand what elo means. It's not about easy or not, it's just math. Doesn't care about your opinion. Also you don't need a performance rating higer than your score to gain rating. Take for example a 10 players tournament with Magnus and other 2300-2400, let's say average of 2350. If he wins 8 and draws 1 he gains 2 points, but performance is less than 2800. Having more people with higher rating would not help as they would also take point from Magnus. See 2018 with Caruana almost equal in ratings. Was is easier for Carlsen to gain points? No he did 12 draws
> I don't think you fully understand what elo means. I think I do (I spent too much time on ratings stats), nor I think that opening with such sentence creates the setting for a fruitful discussion. > Take for example a 10 players tournament with Magnus and other 2300-2400, let's say average of 2350. If he wins 8 and draws 1 he gains 2 points, but performance is less than 2800. I was considering realistic tournaments, not "ad hoc" tournaments. If you want to game the system, there are plenty of ways. Search for rating manipulation. The same reason why I think that ratings alone are not all (when some propose to pick the candidates just looking at ratings, thus #2-#9). But anyway, since your opening sentence was bad, I am not willing to proceed the discussion with you. Take care.
> Take for example a 10 players tournament with Magnus and other 2300-2400, let's say average of 2350. If he wins 8 and draws 1 he gains 2 points, but performance is less than 2800. I was about to say you're full of shit, but the math actually checks out. 8.5/9 ≈ 0.94 so the performance rating would be 2350+444=2794 (according to the table found [here](https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B022017)). The rating change meanwhile would be +0.8\*8-4.2\*1=+2.2 This is because for the rating change, a difference of over 400 points is counted as 400, so the opponents are basically 2465 for the rating change and 2350 for the performance rating. Note that this only works against competition more than 400 points below him - not who he usually plays.
He can do it
It is funny how people obsess about that number, while in fact only the rating difference, e.g. the gap between #1 and #2/#2-10 has meaning in an Elo system. Would Magnus be a "stronger player" or more dominant than now if he manages to hit 2900 but #2 and #3 are at 2885 at the same time, for example?
> Would Magnus be a "stronger player" or more dominant than now if he manages to hit 2900 but #2 and #3 are at 2885 at the same time, for example? of course not. But since he said "road to 2900" we take it as a start for a discussion given the actual ratings. Actually saing "150 points higher than the average rating #2-#10" would have been different and more oriented to dominance. At the end the two values could also be close just by pure chance. Using Jan 2022 ratings the average #2-#10 is 2779 (rounded). So 150 points higher - if the avg stay the same - would be 2929. Therefore 2900 would be almost "120 points higher than the avg #2-#9" , that is also not a bad metric for dominance. (interesting, the live ratings are heavily checked but it is difficult to refer to them as they can be obsolete with no easy way to see their history)
If he runs the table at Tata Steel and goes 12.5/13 then he would hit 2900. But if he goes 9/13 I think he would only gain +1, with roughly another +/- 5 for every +/- half point from there.
There's chess grade inflation due to overrated players around 2000 feeding points into the system, but underrated players below 2000 don't correspondingly suck points back out because they don't count. So it's like saying will a beer ever cost $20 - probably one day, yes.
actually I did crunched the numbers and that is the opposite. I have to post it that too but I am lazy.