Consider:

and

So what does a 2851 FIDE rating in 2000 equal to today? 2865?

Do you think Carlsen's current rating reflects his true strength or would it keep going up for a while?

I'd like to know what the conditions are for this bet.

Just one game right?

If it's a draw is it a wash?

Who plays white?

What are the time controls?

Are they paying curtains 10K to be the referee?

if cunningham is unrated. it would be wayy easier to get to 2100 than if he is rated at, say, 1400. provisional ratings tend to jump a ton if you beat someone that has a high rating.

When talking about rating deflation it's interesting that hte UK system was revamped because of it a couple of years back.

I think Cunningham has to get waaaaaaaaaaaay past the point where he's overlooking a one-mover knight fork before things like Chessbase and opening theory advances etc. are gong to help him any.

What if I played ...Qe3 in this position? Surely opening theory is useless to anyone who would do that.

Indeedy. Were you being sarcastic?

In case you were, I'll try to better explain what I meant.

I'm not saying that opening theory in general is completely useless to you. More like the latest theory, Chessbase etc. isn't going to help you in this match one bit.

The odds of your one game match being decided by some advance in opening theory that Howard is unaware of are basically nil unless you somehow know what opening Howard will play and I'm assuming you don't.

For any player over 1800, missing a one-move knight fork is very rare unless time pressure is a big factor. Maybe once every 60 games or so? That's why I think you should concentrate on eliminating such mistakes rather than spending a lot of time on the latest advances on opening theory.

Deep Fritz v. Kramnik

I believe a few years ago the USCF tried to inflate ratings for a year or so (giving active players rating points in some more or less artificial way) to counter ratings deflation. I don't know the details, though.

Knowing some opening theory is helpful to get pleasant games out of the opening where one would have the ability to outplay one's opponent.

But really, this exhortation: "Don't study openings until you're no longer making tactical mistakes!" is misguided. In a game between two 1800-rated players, there will be a big tactical mistake in every game. (More subtle than a one-move knight fork, perhaps, but not something that they lack the technique to see.)

Haha cool. I wasn't aware of that game, haven't really followed chess much in many years. It does happen though sure, I remember some game where a very strong GM hung his queen to a knight fork, can't remember who it was but the GM said after the game that the ironical thing was that he hung his queen to his opponents only active piece LOL.

Brain farts happen. Still, I'm not sure I ever dropped a piece or even the exchange to a one-mover after getting to say 1800 or something (slow tournament time controls and no time pressure of course). It's possible I did and have forgotten as I haven't played a tournament for over 15 years but I don't remember it happening.

Cmon he drew a master and beat two experts at the US Open. Everyone misses stuff sometimes, has off days etc. Notice he beat two players who are currently higher rated than his opponent in the upcoming bet, and these players are actually active tournament players! You are saying that Chessbase is useless to someone who has shown themselves capable of beating experts?

How much time left till the bet takes place?

Yes I noticed that and it was very impressive indeed and I'm not saying by any means that betting on him is not a smart move. I'm just saying, one day he beats experts and the next day he misses a one-mover which is a lot of volatility. Considering that, I think the latest opening theory isn't going to be a factor and the game is more likely to be decided by some kind of middlegame tactics.

JMHO.

I think that (the bolded part) is overdoing it. And even if it is true, that makes it even more important that Allen spends time on avoiding him being the one who makes the losing tactical blunder.

Of course Allen should spend some time preparing an opening repertoire. All I'm saying that the latest theory is likely to be irrelevant in this particular one game match.

I don't know, maybe he thinks it's really fun? Maybe he finds the game beautiful, artistic, moreso than other games, and thus is makes him happy? Maybe he just can't resist the challenge of winning a bet against a friend?

Also I suspect you are wrong when you say he will never be better than the top 50k players. I would bet almost all of my money that if he tried to do so he would easily (wouldn't happen overnight but it'd be almost automatic with time IMO).

100% agree with all of this.

Just want to add that the "top 50K" players is obv a number Sklansky pulled out of his ass. I don't see why even top 5K would be out of the question.

It's true, but I think access to all of these tools show why players today are generally stronger than their counterparts of 20-30 years ago, which was my original point. Howard will almost certainly play something that doesn't have much to do with opening theory (standard for someone who hasn't played in a long time)

Your original point I agree with.

As far as "the game" goes I was thinking the same thing. If Howard is white I wouldn't be surprised to see him play a3 just as an example.

I'd still like to know what the details of the bet are. I haven't been this interested in a chess game since Durr vs. curtains. More prop bets involving chess IMO.

I'm sort of sad it's not like a 6 game match, it'd be much more interesting that way.

I agree with curtains, Allen would be a big favourite to crack the top 50k players or top 100 13-year olds if he kept playing and studying. 2150 FIDE should do either comfortably.

Top 5k is maybe 2350 (that would make you #3450 on the FIDE list of active players, and I would guess there aren't many players stronger than that without FIDE ratings). Not totally out of the question, but it would be a big shock.

I've been thinking this all along. Was this bet while they were drunk or something? One game seems just so weird. Why not 6 games? Perhaps it's not too late to change it?

I think at the very least they should "run it twice".

I would bet a LOT that Allen would reach 2350 FIDE is there was no time limit.

Is it? Maybe someone with access to a big database and a fast computer has already done this -- have a strong engine go through a thousand rated standard games on FICS or ICC between ~1800 rated players, and see how many games don't have any big tactical errors (e.g., the engine looking at sufficient depth never changes by more than 3/4 of a pawn, say).

If if you only considered errors that changed the evaluation of the game (from winning to drawn, or drawn to losing, for example), I'd guess that the number was still 90%+. Obviously I'm basing this on the small sample of games I've played or seen at that level, so it would be interesting to see a more scientific study.

It all depends on your definition of what a "big" tactical mistake is. Depending on how you define that, sure one such mistake per game for 1800 players is possible.

I was using Allen's one-move blunder of the exchange as a reference point. Dropping the exchange to a one-move knight fork happens a fair bit less, probably less than 1 time in 100 games.

Hmm. I'd guess something similar to that (dropping "two points" of material) happens *way* more than 1% of the time in games between 1800 players. No way to be sure without looking though.