Hahaha. As a 1k. Yes.
Are 2000s really not that good?or are they genius?
Sort:
Mar 25, 2022
0
#43
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel LeeEuler napsal:
The better you get, the more you realize how bad you are
true... well it actually works even for other things.. when you know about something more than average people you also find out that it's more deep than it looks and then you feel like you dont know enough about it at all..
Well put. I am somewhat into track, and a similar example there is like running a 5min mile. If you are a high school male who can run a sub 5min mile, you're way way way faster than basically everyone, including people who have spent a decent amount of time training for mid-distance events.
But if you surround yourself with people who really dedicate themselves to running, you would be so far back that it wouldn't even be practical for you to train with them because the difference in fitness and talent would just be too big. To paraphrase Kasparov, "it would be like comparing Usain Bolt to a Ferrari".
So it is all about the group you are comparing yourself to I suppose. Against basically everyone? A 2000 on chess.com will be beat them 100 times out of 100. But against the subset of players who have played for a while, know opening principles, minimize 1 or 2 move blunders, and have an idea how to play some common endgames? You will score significantly less.
Mar 25, 2022
0
#44
B1ZMARK wrote:
no you're not unbeatable.
You are alphaous.
This joke never gets old. @unbeatable needs to change his username so I can take it.
Mar 26, 2022
0
#45
alphaous wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
no you're not unbeatable.
You are alphaous.
This joke never gets old. @unbeatable needs to change his username so I can take it.
Email support for the name 👻👻
Mar 26, 2022
0
#46
They must be geniuses! I read here that Paul Morphy was only an 1800.
2000s ain't geniuses. Hahahaha. Amirite y'all?
Mar 26, 2022
0
#49
2000 is 99+ percentile in the world of chess.
But still human & not an engine.
But still human & not an engine.
That’s FIDE rated players. But there are thousands of players who have never even heard of FIDE. And I feel like they’re real chess players too
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
Like @FoxWithNekoEars says, 2000s make plenty of mistakes too. We are all human and have off-days, miscalculate and occasionally go with the wrong plan for the needs of the position; then again, this happens to everyone including titled players...
However, 2000s are good at chess in the sense they are "above average" (this is even true for 1500+ according to chess.com global percentile though). To say "genius" is a bit too generous I think though. Perhaps a certain type of thinking, or mindset, can help with chess, but even chess as a whole feels different from traditional "intelligence."
I'm honestly not even sure chess really makes people any smarter (might just be a trope and not applicable to real life as much as some might think). Sure, chess might help players refine skills such as determination, discipline or patience etc. but I tend to believe smart people are more likely to try chess (the appeal of a well known strategy game if nothing else) and this explains the correlation.
I've been over 2000 on chess.com before and I can say from observations that 2000-level players are "good" but not always "genius." That feels much tougher to come by xD
I am rated 2000 and I feel like a noob at this game. The reason why I am this rating (2016 rapid as of the moment of writing this comment) is because other 2000s usually don't play all that well either.
maytheforkbewithy0u wrote:
2000 is advanced borderline expert level. They have a deep understanding of the game and it’s common variations etc. Able to memorize theory to some degree but by no means genius. Chess is just a board game...until you cross into super GM territory....then it can become extremely complex and difficult.
Maybe 2000 FIDE, not 2000 on this website, I am rated 2016 here as of the moment of writing this comment and I can't be honest and say that I have a deep understanding of the game.
Apr 22, 2023
0
#53
It depends on the day. Sometimes I win a brilliant game, then the very next one I hang my queen on move 16!
Apr 22, 2023
0
#54
Yeah, I think 2000s have the potential to be much higher rated, they are just terribly inconsistent.
Apr 22, 2023
0
#55
2000 are utter crap, 2500 may be respectable and 2700 definitely good on this cheaters infested site
Half my games are decided by my opponent hanging a piece…
Oct 12, 2023
0
#57
Deranged wrote:
Unrated games are generally easier than rated games because people often don't take it seriously.
Having said that, you'll see 2000s blunder a fair bit even in rated games. We're not masters.
As a 2000, I agree
Sep 2, 2024
0
#58
2000s are not masters, even the best chess players in the world make blunders like beginners, but they do not blunder as OFTEN as lower rated players. 2000s still blunder quite often, but they often blunder less than anyone below 2000.
Im a 2000 and I blunder a lot, sometimes making the worst moves when Im already in a bad position. Once you reach above 2300s, you will see blunders less common, thats when people get actually serious about games, anyone above 2300 tend to calculate at a deeper level, and finding tactical moves more easily.
no you're not unbeatable.
You are alphaous.