- I mean a horible 900
can a 900 beat a 1800?
Sort:
I know
Yes, yes I can. :P
USCF 898. ^^
Yeah... if they spent at least a year with good coaching and studying while not playing rated games during that time. Otherwise no, 900s are too careless.
your horrible??
pranavravella wrote:
your horrible??
I'm not? 
THINK YOU AREN'T i' horible I used to have a rating of 724
1 in 1000 games maybe, blitz maybe, slow games where they were concentrating? not a chance!
probably bullet. \
pranavravella wrote:
probably bullet. \
If bullet I would actually be more likely to lose. :P
pranavravella wrote:
I mean a horible 900
There are no horrible or superior 900's. There are just 900's.
The Elo is just a mathematical representation of how often a player of a given rating will beat a player of a different rating. Thus, all 900's, no matter how talented you perceive them to be, will beat 1800's at the same rate out of all games played.
That rate will not be very high, but will be no different from how often a 2000 rated player will beat Magnus Carlsen, in theory.
Aksyonov wrote:
pranavravella wrote:
I mean a horible 900
There are no horrible or superior 900's. There are just 900's.
The Elo is just a mathematical representation of how often a player of a given rating will beat a player of a different rating. Thus, all 900's, no matter how talented you perceive them to be, will beat 1800's at the same rate out of all games played.
That rate will not be very high, but will be no different from how often a 2000 rated player will beat Magnus Carlsen, in theory.
really
drawing
nt
That rate will not be very high, but will be no different from how often a 2000 rated player will beat Magnus Carlsen, in theory.
While that may or may not be true in theory, I suspect not true in reality.
why?????:0
never we have a better chance agaist the champ!!!!!!
Because you might get an 1800 who is old, out of practice, over rated, you might also get a 900 rated junior who is rapidly improving whose rating hasn't caught up with him, and vastly underrated. I've coached juniors with ridiculously low ratings relative to their ability. In that scenario you can easily envisage a surprise.
Carlsen is Carlsen. By the same token you're less likely to get a 2000 who should be several hundred points higher. I would say a 2000's chances vs Magnus are borderline non-existant. And even including the word borderline is being generous.
probably