He's not superhuman. Just make good moves.
Thank God someone has found the recipe for beating Carlsen. Just make good moves! Ingenious!
Magnus loses fewer than 5 classical games a year. He didn't lose a single game in the World Championship.
It might be possible, but it's incredibly unlikely. In a 200 game match, I would bet on the 2000 not taking a single game rather than them scoring 1 win or more.
EDIT: I've realised I'm probably too optimistic about the 2000's chances here.
How about 1000 games, two draws or one win. What kind of odds are you laying on that.
In chess 960 absolutely. In chess you are studying fixed patterns that occur over and over again. I see this all the time when I am studying the Accelerated Dragon book I have in the basement. Most study material acts as if ideas are things, objects, or some proven theory that must always work. Perhaps that is the case in conventional chess. However in 960 good luck. How is he going to study all the openings? Cannot be done because there isnt any material out there and there are so many possibilities. So what you have left with is analysis, intuition and how smart the person really is, not just how much they can study. I study chess primarily because it keeps me grounded, not necessarily because it makes me smarter. Sure Carlsen may beat many people. But consider this: There is a reason why GM's dont play lower rated players and it isnt because they arent challenged. It is because playing lower rated players you pick up bad habits primarily. So by not playing GM's protect their mind from the lower rated players. This concept is something to examine carefully.
Where did you come up with this reason of protecting their minds from bad habits?
What's the point of arguing with someone who won't change their beliefs?
What's the point of arguing with someone who won't change their beliefs?
Convincing the undecided spectators that might believe the one who shouts the loudest if none answers ?
What's the point of trying to convince the undecided spectators by arguing directly with whom there is a disagreement ...instead of outlining all the points of all sides in a clear 'syllogistic' format?
Statistically if he plays enough games against lower rated people one of them will win some day.. but there might be 10 000s or 100 000s of them losing in between..
My FIDE is around 2300. I'd probably score somewhere in the 3%-5% range against Carlsen, almost all from draws. I'd be lucky to average 1 win in 100 games. A 2000 FIDE would be lucky to win 5 games out of 100 against me. So just imagine how he would do against Carlsen?
Vishy Anand played a 2100 FIDE rated player in Blitz last year as part of
an interview (interviewer was the 2100 FIDE player). His opponent got
5 minutes with a 2 sec increment, Anand had 2 minutes with a 2 sec
increment. Vishy checkmated him in something like 34 moves and
used a total of 8 seconds on his clock. In the next game, he beat him in
something like like 24 moves when his opponent dropped a rook and
resigned. Anand had more time on his clock than when he started the
game. I know the post was about Carlsen but I think this anecdote may
be indicative of the strength of players of this caliber.
--Vic.
Exactly.
Anyone who's witnessed first hand the awesome power of a Super-GM measured directly against mere FIDE masters and the like, knows this; Maybe you've seen some blitz games against weaker opposition in an open tournament or such, or maybe it was a simul. The point is when you see the master, like some arcane being from another planet, utterly crushing with godlike authority that guy from your hometown who beats you even on his worst day, you begin to understand the unfathomable skill of these top-tier players. You realize that if this game was a boxing match, you could practice all your life and it'd still be like you reached them to their knees. Welcome to the tier of mediocrity =)
Look this IM looks defenseless, is just like if Svidler didn´t need to make an effort:
I have a FIDE rating slightly above 2000 ...
If Magnus and me started with a drinking contest to min. 10 pints of beer and than played a match I see some small chances.
Magnus being sober or < 10 pints I surely would be without any chance. 
My FIDE is around 2300. I'd probably score somewhere in the 3%-5% range against Carlsen, almost all from draws. I'd be lucky to average 1 win in 100 games. A 2000 FIDE would be lucky to win 5 games out of 100 against me. So just imagine how he would do against Carlsen?
No, for a 300 points of difference, the expected result is 15% for the weaker player.
My FIDE is around 2300. I'd probably score somewhere in the 3%-5% range against Carlsen, almost all from draws. I'd be lucky to average 1 win in 100 games. A 2000 FIDE would be lucky to win 5 games out of 100 against me. So just imagine how he would do against Carlsen?
No, for a 300 points of difference, the expected result is 15% for the weaker player.
That would be 10 draws and 85 losses then.
Sure, it could be like that.
I should hire a 2300 for 100 games match to see how much I can score. But that match should take like 2 years 
My FIDE is around 2300. I'd probably score somewhere in the 3%-5% range against Carlsen, almost all from draws. I'd be lucky to average 1 win in 100 games. A 2000 FIDE would be lucky to win 5 games out of 100 against me. So just imagine how he would do against Carlsen?
My rating fluctuated between 2000 and 2190 for about 15 years. During that time, I scored ~27% against players rated 2300-2400. I wonder what Frappe's score was against players rated 2600-2700.
Every so often the Quantum Leap factor comes into play. Chess improvement isn't always one point at a time. It is concievable that a very young 2000 player may on his very next outing perform on the GM level. That very next outing might be a simul against Magnus and he draws. To actually win outright would still be beyond him and even most legitimate GMs.
maybe
why are you guys talking about beer??
Its odd how people think of things. The people who are good at math here seem to think that they can plug in the value of the rating and get an idea of how often the 2000 player would win. The people who prioritize human capital seem to think it is just a matter of being better, yet disregard the scarcity of that ability. Here is the thing, every player is on the top 200 list of players of all time was once a 2000 RATED player. That means that the question is not "can a 2000 RATED player beat magnus carlsen", but rather: "How scarce is a player like Magnus Carlsen?". Is he a once in a lifetime player? once in two lifetimes? unique? or is he just the product of something going on in chess analagous to the Flynn effect? Then the question becomes if there is such a player, can he play well enough, early on in his career, to beat Magnus Carlsen. So asking about ratings and formulas is a little misinforming. And you dont need a Phd to understand that.
ok intresting games.links