4 ms·

Doesn't gaining 600 points mean that you are able to beat the "old you" (or more precisely, people who you used to be even with) with 99% probability? (Or perha

Doesn't gaining 600 points mean that you are able to beat the "old you" (or more precisely, people who you used to be even with) with 99% probability? (Or perhaps more meaningfully, you can now beat someone who could beat someone who could beat someone who could beat someone who can beat the old you, all with 80% probability?) (I made up the exact numbers, but the idea is there.) That seems like a meaningful interpretation of "600 points" that applies to anyone -- though the difficulty of actually making this improvement definitely varies with your starting rating.

marcusbuffett 5y ago
Yeah this is exactly right, as far as my understanding of elo goes.
lupire 5y ago
The friendly term for chess newbie is "rapidly improving player". The first 600 points are far far easier than the next 600.
SamBam 5y ago
> That seems like a meaningful interpretation of "600 points" that applies to anyone It does apply to anyone, but it is more or less meaningful depending on where you start, so the meaningfulness isn't equivalent. It's as if you say you can double your money, but it only works once and with a value < $1. The idea that, say, Magnus could increase his chess playing abilities in 6 months (or even 6 years) to be able to beat the current version of himself 99% of the time would be insane.
- wpasc 5y ago
  I often wonder if chess players have a natural "peak"/"optimal" age range in the way that professional athletes do. Being a thinking game that requires strong brain functionality combined with accumulated experience, I wonder if there is an age range that is best for most players. Trade offs may be something like in yours teens and early 20's your brain may have the most plasticity and ability to visualize (plan 10+ moves ahead) but you might not have accumulated enough experience. I'm purely speculating here and just wondering aloud. (I bring it up in response to this comment because Magnus' prodigious talent is so noteworthy I wonder when Magnus will stop being able to "beat" Magnus of 1 year ago.
  - sharedfrog 5y ago
    > I wonder when Magnus will stop being able to "beat" Magnus of 1 year ago. While this doesn't answer your question, it's interesting to note Magnus's peak rating was actually 7 and a half years ago, when he was only 23.
    - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
      Then again with how ELO works it doesn’t necessary mean that it was Magnus’s peak only that that the point when the gap between him and the rest of the chess world was the largest. I think others became stronger and he had more competition. Still Magnus himself seems to think he is past his peak in interviews.
      - pishpash 5y ago
        I mean, he himself wouldn't necessarily be able to tell the difference of him getting worse or the rest getting better. To him it's just getting harder to beat people. At his level how can you judge yourself unless you played against a fixed-version AI chess program?
  - jbritton 5y ago
    I watched a YouTube video recently that talked about how difficult it is to go from 2350 FIDE to 2500. It seemed to imply if you don’t make 2500 by age 20, you will probably won’t ever get there or it will require years of study. The video was just an opinion, no data to support it was presented.
  - Gene_Parmesan 5y ago
    It's worth noting that chess grandmasters can burn up to 6000 calories per day while competing in tournaments. It's an absolutely exhausting endeavor, and I imagine sheer endurance can play a huge role. So yes, performance does fall off with age, though not as intensely as something like hockey.
    - mattnewton 5y ago
Kranar 5y ago
Someone who is just learning chess will likely be able to beat the old them with 99% probability after a few days of playing and learning. Someone who is ranked at around 1200 and really commits to improving can likely beat the old them in a couple of months by memorizing a few common openings and practicing drills/working on fundamentals. Someone who is a dedicated chess player and ranked above 1800 may never be able to beat the old them with 99% probability. So if someone says they improved by 600 points, certainly that is meaningful to them as an individual and it means they can basically beat their old self, but it won't be very meaningful to me.
prionassembly 5y ago
It means he can beat me with overwhelming odds. That's not nothing.
narag 5y ago
Doesn't gaining 600 points mean that you are able to beat the "old you" (or more precisely, people who you used to be even with) with 99% probability? I don't know what it means in theory. In practice I win and then lose 200 points in lichess in a few days. Some time ago I used to win and lose 100 around the day in a cycle. Maybe ratings aren't adjusted around the globe, so for the same points there are different skill levels as you go through time zones. There's a fact that really annoys me: for my 2+1 bullet, it's harder to be at 1500 than at 1600. Once I'm at 1600, I can reach 1700 with a winning streak. If I fall into 1500, I tend to get stuck there.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

marcusbuffett 5y ago

Yeah this is exactly right, as far as my understanding of elo goes.

lupire 5y ago

The friendly term for chess newbie is "rapidly improving player". The first 600 points are far far easier than the next 600.

SamBam 5y ago

> That seems like a meaningful interpretation of "600 points" that applies to anyone It does apply to anyone, but it is more or less meaningful depending on where you start, so the meaningfulness isn't equivalent. It's as if you say you can double your money, but it only works once and with a value < $1. The idea that, say, Magnus could increase his chess playing abilities in 6 months (or even 6 years) to be able to beat the current version of himself 99% of the time would be insane.

wpasc 5y ago
I often wonder if chess players have a natural "peak"/"optimal" age range in the way that professional athletes do. Being a thinking game that requires strong brain functionality combined with accumulated experience, I wonder if there is an age range that is best for most players. Trade offs may be something like in yours teens and early 20's your brain may have the most plasticity and ability to visualize (plan 10+ moves ahead) but you might not have accumulated enough experience. I'm purely speculating here and just wondering aloud. (I bring it up in response to this comment because Magnus' prodigious talent is so noteworthy I wonder when Magnus will stop being able to "beat" Magnus of 1 year ago.
- sharedfrog 5y ago
  > I wonder when Magnus will stop being able to "beat" Magnus of 1 year ago. While this doesn't answer your question, it's interesting to note Magnus's peak rating was actually 7 and a half years ago, when he was only 23.
  - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
    Then again with how ELO works it doesn’t necessary mean that it was Magnus’s peak only that that the point when the gap between him and the rest of the chess world was the largest. I think others became stronger and he had more competition. Still Magnus himself seems to think he is past his peak in interviews.
    - pishpash 5y ago
      I mean, he himself wouldn't necessarily be able to tell the difference of him getting worse or the rest getting better. To him it's just getting harder to beat people. At his level how can you judge yourself unless you played against a fixed-version AI chess program?
- jbritton 5y ago
  I watched a YouTube video recently that talked about how difficult it is to go from 2350 FIDE to 2500. It seemed to imply if you don’t make 2500 by age 20, you will probably won’t ever get there or it will require years of study. The video was just an opinion, no data to support it was presented.
- Gene_Parmesan 5y ago
  It's worth noting that chess grandmasters can burn up to 6000 calories per day while competing in tournaments. It's an absolutely exhausting endeavor, and I imagine sheer endurance can play a huge role. So yes, performance does fall off with age, though not as intensely as something like hockey.
  - mattnewton 5y ago

Kranar 5y ago

Someone who is just learning chess will likely be able to beat the old them with 99% probability after a few days of playing and learning. Someone who is ranked at around 1200 and really commits to improving can likely beat the old them in a couple of months by memorizing a few common openings and practicing drills/working on fundamentals. Someone who is a dedicated chess player and ranked above 1800 may never be able to beat the old them with 99% probability. So if someone says they improved by 600 points, certainly that is meaningful to them as an individual and it means they can basically beat their old self, but it won't be very meaningful to me.

prionassembly 5y ago

It means he can beat me with overwhelming odds. That's not nothing.

narag 5y ago

Doesn't gaining 600 points mean that you are able to beat the "old you" (or more precisely, people who you used to be even with) with 99% probability? I don't know what it means in theory. In practice I win and then lose 200 points in lichess in a few days. Some time ago I used to win and lose 100 around the day in a cycle. Maybe ratings aren't adjusted around the globe, so for the same points there are different skill levels as you go through time zones. There's a fact that really annoys me: for my 2+1 bullet, it's harder to be at 1500 than at 1600. Once I'm at 1600, I can reach 1700 with a winning streak. If I fall into 1500, I tend to get stuck there.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]