Cunningham Prop bet to get to 2100

[Infinite Greed]

You are exaggerating greatly. You first have to read the question, then solve it, then shift to the separate answer page, find the correct question, fill in the answer, then shift back over to the test page and start on the next question. You probably need at least 5 seconds minimum for any one question, and that's if you are really expert and can answer it instantly. Most questions involve some level of calculation and recall to determine the correct solving method.

[Sholar]

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

Not so easy to get 800 in twenty minutes. That's less than 14 seconds per question. I'd bet fewer than 5% of math Phds could achieve that.

Originally Posted by Duke

While everything you said is true, a lot of the questions are like 1 second to answer so you end up banking a lot of time. And high level math isn't even on the SAT, so the Phd doesn't have an advantage in that respect either.

Less than 5% could achieve it right now if you woke them out of bed, or less than 5% could achieve it after a year of training?

Being able to rapidly answer multiple choice, low-level math questions is not the sort of thing that motivates one to do research mathematics, though a good percentage of math PhDs probably did do "contest mathematics" as kids.

[Nezh]

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

Obviously I am talking about taking the ninety minute math SAT where you and I both get twenty minutes.

Uh-Oh.....Sklansky is wheeling out the SAT-test gun. This thread has just got potential for epicness.

Curtains: your low appreciation of one years (in fact longer because Allen started a couple of months back) hard work at chess surprises me. I mean getting to 1800 in a year I think is easier than getting to 2000 in two. it´s basically just plugging knowledge and practicing. And it´s not like HL was a huge chess mogul. His last recorded rating is from 1987, 23 years ago, and it was 1951 USCF, comparable to what, 1850 FIDE? And he´s fifteen years older, not practicing and his playing strenght has probably dropped.

Allen may be getting hussled if the bet is over a huge amount of money and HL is re-sharpening his skills like a madman. That´s why making the $$ involved public, apart from satisfying curiosity, will open the sidebet market. Huge bet: good odds needed for Allen, modest bet: no odds needed.

And I loved the crane, guppy and mountainclimbing comparisons. Sklansky is making utility arguments, but what if one does not care about utility or denies its very existence?

[Noir_Desir]

Originally Posted by bigpooch

IMHO, chess is the "most beautiful game" and it wouldn't even matter if you never "mastered" the game or ever get a USCF rating above 2000. If you do get significantly better, you can better appreciate GM games, endgame studies and any analysis; even if you don't, there's also literature about the history of the game and players that is accessible to almost anyone. As long as chess in enjoyable, you can even be a "patzer" ( consider all the golfers in the world ).

It really doesn't matter too much if you win/lose your prop bet, does it? [ Perhaps, it gives more motivation. ]

Welcome to the "world of chess" and all the best in your chess endeavors!

I think so too, but the more i study great games, endgame masters and superb tacticians the more annoyed i get with the quality of my own games (i'm 2150 FIDE) I win games because of huge blunders, i lose games because of terrible moves, and above all i draw games because i always seem to miss the winning move. Got...to...get...better.

[river_tilt]

Hmm... As a low stakes gambler with a PhD in maths, my desire to take an SAT test is 0.

I'm rubbish at chess, though, and if I had more free time I'd quite like to learn to play better. (My Go ranking is around 2,500 but I don't think the Go and FIDE rankings map onto each other particularly well.)

[John_Douglas]

A highly intelligent person studying chess seriously could definitely go from 1200 to 2100 in a year. It's just a question of whether he has the motivation to devote himself to chess to the necessary extent.

[Nezh]

Originally Posted by John_Douglas

A highly intelligent person studying chess seriously could definitely go from 1200 to 2100 in a year. It's just a question of whether he has the motivation to devote himself to chess to the necessary extent.

I´m pretty sure you are lol wrong and underestimating the time, experience and effort that is needed to reach 2100. It is hard to prove, but getting to 2100 (and most -even pretty dedicated- players never get there) takes most people three to five years minimum. Just look at rating graphs of players on the FIDE website and you wont find a single player skyrocketing 900 points in a year. AC´s bet will be an interesting testcase, but improving from 1400 to 1800 is about the limit. Any 100 rating point step up the ladder is much harder than the previous one.

[John_Douglas]

I´m pretty sure you are lol wrong and underestimating the time, experience and effort that is needed to reach 2100. It is hard to prove, but getting to 2100 (and most -even pretty dedicated- players never get there) takes most people three to five years minimum. Just look at rating graphs of players on the FIDE website and you wont find a single player skyrocketing 900 points in a year. AC´s bet will be an interesting testcase, but improving from 1400 to 1800 is about the limit. Any 100 rating point step up the ladder is much harder than the previous one.

The minimum FIDE rating is 2000 and the maximum is 2850, so I'm not too surprised that there aren't any players on record jumping 900 points in a year lol. Obviously in any analysis going from 1200 to 2100 is a lot less difficult than from 2100 to 3000, so I don't see the relevance of this analogy anyway.

I would compare it to running a marathon. Just about anyone in decent health could train themself to run a marathon in a year or less. It's the same to reach 2100 in chess, someone with sufficient intelligence should reach that level fairly quickly through hard work, it doesn't require any special skills whatsoever.

[bigpooch]

Originally Posted by Nezh

I´m pretty sure you are lol wrong and underestimating the time, experience and effort that is needed to reach 2100. It is hard to prove, but getting to 2100 (and most -even pretty dedicated- players never get there) takes most people three to five years minimum. Just look at rating graphs of players on the FIDE website and you wont find a single player skyrocketing 900 points in a year. AC´s bet will be an interesting testcase, but improving from 1400 to 1800 is about the limit. Any 100 rating point step up the ladder is much harder than the previous one.

I know of several people that tried to get to about 2000-2100 and many of them didn't; maybe they didn't have the time, resources or discipline; even if they did have all the necessary "ingredients", it's far from certain all of them would get to 2000 in three to five years. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that the vast majority of adults won't "legitimately" get from about 1700 to 2100 within one year.

I think the starting age is a big factor: If you start with children that are very young, say 4 to 10 years of age and teach/train them for five years, I'd think that at least 10% of them would get to about 2000 ( and 2100 is still a "step up" from 2000 ), but some would argue that it might be a "waste" compared to golf, basketball, baseball or "academics".

[Nezh]

Your knowledge of the FIDE rating system is outdated.

[QUOTE=John_Douglas;17629482The minimum FIDE rating is 2000 and the maximum is 2850[/QUOTE]

[bigpooch]

Originally Posted by John_Douglas

I´m pretty sure you are lol wrong and underestimating the time, experience and effort that is needed to reach 2100. It is hard to prove, but getting to 2100 (and most -even pretty dedicated- players never get there) takes most people three to five years minimum. Just look at rating graphs of players on the FIDE website and you wont find a single player skyrocketing 900 points in a year. AC´s bet will be an interesting testcase, but improving from 1400 to 1800 is about the limit. Any 100 rating point step up the ladder is much harder than the previous one.

The minimum FIDE rating is 2000 and the maximum is 2850, so I'm not too surprised that there aren't any players on record jumping 900 points in a year lol. Obviously in any analysis going from 1200 to 2100 is a lot less difficult than from 2100 to 3000, so I don't see the relevance of this analogy anyway.

I would compare it to running a marathon. Just about anyone in decent health could train themself to run a marathon in a year or less. It's the same to reach 2100 in chess, someone with sufficient intelligence should reach that level fairly quickly through hard work, it doesn't require any special skills whatsoever.

Really? If you're using the marathon analogy, I'd think it's similar to being able to run the marathon in less than about 3.5 hours; sure, some can do it, but some will never be able to. Almost anyone can play chess according to the rules, but not everyone will achieve a rating above 2100.

[jontsef]

Well I guess what he's saying is true as long as "sufficient intelligence" means "possessing a specific and, somewhat rare, mental proclivity highly suitable for chess."

[All-inMcLovin]

To reach a certain rating from an already established USCF rating, lets say achieving 2000 or 2100 USCF, is hard because it takes time attending and competing in tournaments.

So for a 1200 USCF to become a 2100 USCF in one year's time, would be hard Physically to do so.

However someone who is 1200 USCF and maybe 1300-1400 strength at the time could get up to 2000 strength within a year if he worked hard enough. However just from the rating system and tournaments played, that 1200 USCF may only be at about 1800 USCF after a year of playing in tournaments.

[John_Douglas]

Originally Posted by bigpooch

Really? If you're using the marathon analogy, I'd think it's similar to being able to run the marathon in less than about 3.5 hours; sure, some can do it, but some will never be able to. Almost anyone can play chess according to the rules, but not everyone will achieve a rating above 2100.

I don't know much about marathon times, so I won't belabour the point, but I think you'd be surprised what someone could achieve in one year of intensive training (assuming they start from a point of reasonable health).

We're talking about someone studying chess 6 hours a day (probably studying with a professional trainer or with strong players) for a year and playing 100 or so tournament games during that time. So basically making chess their full-time job for a year. Under this sort of training regimen, 2100 I think would be an achievable target for someone of above average intelligence in a year (I don't particularly see why someone of above average intelligence would undertake this, but that's another story). 2100 in chess isn't that strong at all really (I'm about 2100 FIDE btw).

Saying that very few players actually reach 2100 is beside the point since there are no amateur players who study chess that intensively (actually there was a 2100 player in Canada a while back who called himself a chess professional, but he switched to poker a few years ago)

Anyway I'd be interested to see the result of this bet.

[roblin]

Originally Posted by Allen C

What do you guys think are the benefits of hiring a live coach? At present I only plan to use an online site to send games for criticism, and of course I'll look at chess engine analysis. I've simply researched my own lesson plan and will gather the appropriate books and software as needed.

imo use computers and coaching videos.

watch kingscrushers videos on youtube, play some games, blundercheck them in aquarium, explore the moves the computer suggest. play yourself with comp AN running and see what the different moves scores and pick one of the top alternatives that you think are most interesting. study some pawn endgames.

GL