Of course it is possible. If nothing else, a 1300 can beat 1400s and become a 1400, then beat 1400s and become a 1500, and eventually become a 2700 or 2800 himself/herself. Work ethic is all that matters.
That is not how it works. To reach 2700 you have to have some natural talent. There is a reason only 46 now have above that rating
We are talking true ratings... and I would bet a queen down the 2700 still would win
I'll put up $100 vs. any 2700 rated player OTB if they want to give queen's odds, any day ;). A GM is a GM, but a queen is a queen (to paraphrase Tal).
They would wash the board with you.
Of course it is possible. If nothing else, a 1300 can beat 1400s and become a 1400, then beat 1400s and become a 1500, and eventually become a 2700 or 2800 himself/herself. Work ethic is all that matters.
That is not how it works. To reach 2700 you have to have some natural talent. There is a reason only 46 now have above that rating
Very few people have the sort of combination of time, resources, aptitude, work ethic, and hunger that one needs to get to that level. Natural talent helps, but it is only one aspect, and stories of people like GM Victor Bologan and GM Ben Finegold continue to defy conventional wisdom's suggestion that one needs natural talent to become very strong GMs.
We are talking true ratings... and I would bet a queen down the 2700 still would win
I'll put up $100 vs. any 2700 rated player OTB if they want to give queen's odds, any day ;). A GM is a GM, but a queen is a queen (to paraphrase Tal).
They would wash the board with you.
Pure speculation on your part, and speculation that you have no hope of proving unless you are Topolov's godson or something ;). You're just like the guy who said Kasparov could give queen's odds to a candidate master and win...umm, no, he could not. Not today, and not at the peak of his career. Knight odds are one thing. Queen odds are in another stratosphere entirely.
Well Ben Finegold was a USCF master at 14 so I believe he had some natural talent... and I do not believe Ben was ever rated over 2700... but more importantly you just named exceptions to the rule. I am not saying if you work hard you will not reach it but natural talent is very important to reach 2700. Find me someone who started out at a real 1300... meaning played a bunch of games and still is rated that low... that became a strong GM
We are talking true ratings... and I would bet a queen down the 2700 still would win
I'll put up $100 vs. any 2700 rated player OTB if they want to give queen's odds, any day ;). A GM is a GM, but a queen is a queen (to paraphrase Tal).
They would wash the board with you.
Pure speculation on your part, and speculation that you have no hope of proving unless you are Topolov's godson or something ;). You're just like the guy who said Kasparov could give queen's odds to a candidate master and win...umm, no, he could not. Not today, and not at the peak of his career. Knight and odds are one thing. Queen odds are in another stratosphere entirely.
A 1300 rated person and a CM are completely different lol. A 1300 would have almost no chance of beating a CM, but it would be a better chance than a GM. Here lets play a game, unrated of course, I will use an engine to simulate strong play. I will let you take my queen and then we will play from there and see what happens...
We are talking true ratings... and I would bet a queen down the 2700 still would win
I'll put up $100 vs. any 2700 rated player OTB if they want to give queen's odds, any day ;). A GM is a GM, but a queen is a queen (to paraphrase Tal).
They would wash the board with you.
Pure speculation on your part, and speculation that you have no hope of proving unless you are Topolov's godson or something ;). You're just like the guy who said Kasparov could give queen's odds to a candidate master and win...umm, no, he could not. Not today, and not at the peak of his career. Knight and odds are one thing. Queen odds are in another stratosphere entirely.
A 1300 rated person and a CM are completely different lol. A 1300 would have almost no chance of beating a CM, but it would be a better chance than a GM. Here lets play a game, unrated of course, I will use an engine to simulate strong play. I will let you take my queen and then we will play from there and see what happens...
I think queen odds is a bit much. :P
Kasparov is not the same as just any strong GM, either, but that's beside the point. Kasparov could not beat a solid 1600 player giving queen odds, either (unless they beat themselves by assigning Kasparov magic powers in their own mind ;)...).
As for playing the engine, no thanks. Not only is it not worth my time...it's a no-win scenario on my end since you'd claim I was cheating when I won anyway ;). My $100 offer stands, though. That would be worthwhile.
I've played a FM before (for a good 2-3hours of casual games), and while I lost repeatedly, it was not because of dropping pieces or not seeing what was happening as it happened. It was just a series of slow strangulations.
I would not claim you were cheating. I was going to post the game on here win or lose.... I know it is hard to take that you will never be able to play the chess those players do, but give them some credit. Against a 1600 is a different story..... And a 1300 and a CM are 900 points apart. Kasparov was not anywhere near " 900 points" better than any other GM. So I do not see what you are doing besides making yourself look ignorant.
Well Ben Finegold was a USCF master at 14 so I believe he had some natural talent... and I do not believe Ben was ever rated over 2700... but more importantly you just named exceptions to the rule. I am not saying if you work hard you will not reach it but natural talent is very important to reach 2700. Find me someone who started out at a real 1300... meaning played a bunch of games and still is rated that low... that became a strong GM
Agreed.
Well someone clearly didn't get my reference. Very shallow and pedantic of him. I dare say he lacks charm and wit!
Yeah I'd put $100 down with queen's odds against a 2700. Easy mullah. And if a 2700 wants to play me 100 times, I'll put $100 down that I could draw or beat him one game. lol
Yeah I'd put $100 down with queen's odds against a 2700. Easy mullah. And if a 2700 wants to play me 100 times, I'll put $100 down that I could draw or beat him one game. lol
Not a chance. You are a patzer
Yeah I'd put $100 down with queen's odds against a 2700. Easy mullah. And if a 2700 wants to play me 100 times, I'll put $100 down that I could draw or beat him one game. lol
Not a chance. You are a patzer
Looking at your record, I don't think your evaluation of chess talent means very much. lol
Don't get mad junior. Just pointing out the facts.
I would not claim you were cheating. I was going to post the game on here win or lose.... I know it is hard to take that you will never be able to play the chess those players do, but give them some credit. Against a 1600 is a different story..... And a 1300 and a CM are 900 points apart. Kasparov was not anywhere near " 900 points" better than any other GM. So I do not see what you are doing besides making yourself look ignorant.
I have no interest in being part of your campaign ;).
As for being hard to take...it isn't hard in the slightest. I willingly forego improving my rating without any bitterness (and have since I was 7, when I realized I would rather keep playing chess as the game it is, and not as a central goal in my life ;)...).
As was pointed out, you're really in no position to comment on this at all...heck, my rating is higher than yours and I completely avoid studying the game beyond what is leisure time and fun for me; it's not me that looks ignorant.
Sad to say...utter nonsense.
You might also want to say that someone who knows how to ride a bicycle has a 50/50 chance against an astronaut on piloting a space craft to the moon.
Or that someone who has mastered their times tables can solve differential equations or multi-variable calculus.