elo_researcher, I think you are math challenged? Not a good idea for you to start a column about a math way to increase your rating.
math challenged means? well, arent FIDe ratings all mathematics? and its just simple arithmetic - plus, minus, multiplication and averages...
Even if it did work to be GM and youd have to play Open... YOUD LOSE EVERY CHESS GAME BECAUSE U BECAME GM WITH OUT ANY SKILL!
this is not about becoming a GM, its about increasing ur rating from 2500 to 3000, its assumed he already has a skill of 2500, but still can become a 3000
And also, to become a gm there's more than just a rating requirement. You also need "at least two favorable results from a total of at least 27 games in tournaments involving other Grandmasters, including some from countries other than the applicant's" (according to wikipedia). Now, I don't know exactly what it means by "favorable results," but I'm pretty sure that winning against 400 rated players doesn't count.
its not about becoming a GM, just about rating increase after becoming a GM by the normal porcess...
If it's true that there's a minimum gain of 0.8 then the OP is right, you can, as a GM or very strong player, gain rating from playing in open tournaments where some of the players will significantly below this 0.8 threshold, giving you a statistical edge over the statistics =)
There's no need to play these players exclusively, but as your rating becomes artificial, a significant share of your opponents would have consist of them - otherwise you'll be normalizing your rating in games against stronger players and the effect will be lessened. Where could a GM possibly find tourneys like this to enter?
Why is the system flawed like this? Is this 0.8 threshold designed to give stronger players an incentive to enter smaller tourneys?
not just incentives like this, they have free entry and prizes to win too...u can find atleast 40 to 50 such tournaments a year in India atleast...
Because his peak and current rating are over 2700. Heck, even if his peak was 2400 he'd still need to have genius.
I don't agree. above 2700 definitely a chess genius and probably an iq of at least 150. I don't think you need to have genius level intelligence to get to 2400; probably only need at least 135-140 for that (which is still 2 sd's above average).
no genius can beat borislav ivanov.
A "minor" flaw in your system is that the 2500 player has a really big chance to lose and draw some of the hundreds games to the 400 points lower rated players, even if it would be all 2100 players. In addition to that he will have to non stop beat 2600 rated players to get to 3000 (and maintain the rating diff of 400).
My estimation is that in the long run this system will result a rating of about 2500....
he doesnt need to beat 2600s...as far as i understand, beating any rated player would be enough...the difference of 400 points or more stands counted as 400 only..so whether he beats 2600 or 1200, he gains 0.8 points...
In that case it indeed seems benificial, if you care more about rating than actual strength, to play the weakest opponents available. Also the rating loss will be relatively low in case of a draw or loss.
Mathematically, it is possible to increase the elo rating by playing / winning consistently against low rated players as elo_researcher says. But does any one play only for increasing the rating? What about the challenge of beating other GMs? Will the world recognize your rating if you have never played other GMs and higher rated players? Nobody desires to beat weak players. We all want to beat strong players. Isn't it true of us all?
Mathematically, it is possible to increase the elo rating by playing / winning consistently against low rated players as elo_researcher says. But does any one play only for increasing the rating? What about the challenge of beating other GMs? Will the world recognize your rating if you have never played other GMs and higher rated players? Nobody desires to beat weak players. We all want to beat strong players. Isn't it true of us all?
absolutely true, no disputing the fact that one would like to be world's top rated player only by beating the best players out there...this was just about an easy possibility just in case someone attempts just for d record..ppl do say 3000 is impossible for humans...
Because his peak and current rating are over 2700. Heck, even if his peak was 2400 he'd still need to have genius.
I don't agree. above 2700 definitely a chess genius and probably an iq of at least 150. I don't think you need to have genius level intelligence to get to 2400; probably only need at least 135-140 for that (which is still 2 sd's above average).
A common point of confusion is number vs. percentile. On many tests 135 is at least 98%ile so a 165 on one test could translate to 145 on another as both would be 99.99th %ile just a different scale. Think of Stamford-Binet as metric and Weschler as U.S. Standard, different number, same objective value like 177cm being around 70 inches 
The confusion is both scales have the same symbol (IQ) so people assume a 150 is 150 no matter the test whereas %ile is more meaningful.
wikipedia also said arizona is the state with the most rain fall
Show me where.
Is this guy a troll? I think there is a major flaw here that no one in mentioning. It is the getting better part that is difficult. Let’s say he does always play people who are rated four hundred points below him. That means this player has to be good enough to beat those people. That isn’t so bad when you’re a 1200 rated player but what about when you’re a 1900 rated, or 2500. You will have to be able to beat these tough players and since when is that easy? Again not to mention the larger the gap between you and another player is the less points you gain so you could no keep working this system indefinitely. Eventually your points will converge on a value.
thats not trolling dude, thats an observation...on the rating system...and since when has it become difficult for 2500 or 2600 players to beat or draw 2000 or below?
It may not be hard to beat a 200 or below if you are 2500 or 2600, but it is difficult to be that good. There is nothing easy about getting to be as good as a 2600 player. Not to mention you say you have to WIN every game, that is hard. All I am trying to say is for this system to work your playing will have to improve to where you actually deserve that rating and it is hard to get better if you just play lower rated people.
The 'system' is for people who are already a GM, as he said in the opening post.
1) I have lost games to people rated 400 points below me. It happens. (And don't forget, sometimes you run into someone on the rise who is actually stronger than their rating suggests.)
2) I have won 5 games from masters rated more than 400 points above me, including Jude Acers and two other masters. It happens.
But there is no recorded serious match of a 2700 losing to a 1000. It doesn't happen. It's a large supply of 0.8 points for free.
Correct. The 2500 could play people over 1000 points lower than him, it wouldn't have to be 2100 rated players. The real flaws are, length of time it would take, availability of suitable players, and the fact it's pretty pointless :)
He should have to organize the tournaments. Like that millionarie that increased his driver´s rating to 2400 with suspicious tournaments.
He should have to organize the tournaments. Like that millionarie that increased his driver´s rating to 2400 with suspicious tournaments.
Afromeev's method is certainly morer advanced than the OP's.
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.gr/2007/07/story-worth-reading-by-gm-baburin-of.html
well, the method described here is not a fraud...it is something absolutely allowed by the FIDE system...if someone tries to manipulate this system like this, its not that he or she is unethical, just that the system allows it...
Heres the problem playing against 2000s instead of higher leveled players. When you play a lower skilled player you start to develope bad habits and lose your skill because whats working for you against the 2000s is absorbed into your brain. If you took someone rated 2000 for example and made him play 600s 100 times his skill would start to diminish atleast temporarily. This would make progressing in chess skill harder.
I dunno... on wikipedia it says 2.