NH!

how good do you need to be anyway to be top 50,000 in the world?

The 10,000th rated active player on the FIDE list is rated about 2220, and the 20,000th is about 2105. I expect most players who are that strong have played some FIDE rated tournaments, they didn't get that good playing around the kitchen table at Christmas. But let's say conservatively only 40% of players that strong have a FIDE rating. That would mean 2100 would probably be enough to be in the top 50k in the world, and 2200 would make it certain. Of course he has a long way to go, but I don't think anyone would rule out Allen being 2200 or 2100 at some point.

The presumption that people do competitive activities to prove they are intelligent or be in the top 10,000 players is incorrect. Its still fun to compete and also appreciate the depth of the game.

wow I'm about 2200 fide... did not realize there were that many better people than me at chess

I agree, a chess level of 2100 is pretty much master. There are very few people in this world who are that high, chess is much more intellectually complex than poker.

Bump.

I assume this is still going to happen at some point?

Howard may have some time available soon.

There is no more Howard Lederer, only Juardo Lederazales, an independently wealthy Portuguese man sipping martinis on a beach in the Caribbean somewhere.

I will rule out Allen being 2200 at some point.

LOL WTF??

Since this quote was mentioned again a few pages ago, I'll comment on it. The goal in chess is not to prove that you are intelligent or smarter than others. In fact, sometimes the opponent doesn't even matter. The goal is to make a sequence of good (perfect) decisions in some sort of logical puzzle. This is a challenge and it can be worthwhile.

Sure, it is unlikely that Allan will be able to make money with it and he could make a lot of money playing poker instead, so it is a problem in terms of hourly rate, but who cares? Life isn't all about money after all.

Now to the other quote of Allen probably not reaching 2200. Unfortunately that statement is true. It looks like his rate of improvement has slowed down considerably. This points towards a peak below 2200, which is no reason to panic. It may just indicate that it is time to look for other methods.

I still have the feeling that the openings are trash and should be replaced. Göring Gambit, Grand Prix Attack and the Bogo Indian are a mixture of dubious and harmless stuff that can't be the solution, at least for my taste.

I love it. If a child went from nothing to a shade under 1800 in a year, everybody would think he's well on his way to becoming world champ. When Allen does it its suddenly crystal clear he'll never become anybody in chess and has already just about reached his final plateau.

I am almost certain if you looked up most 2200+ players, the vast majority would NOT have reached even remotely close to 1800 in their first year of tournament play.

ITT: jealous haters

See, you figured it out yourself by the end of your post.

Now just add "IMO" to the rest of your post and you'll be golden.

I'm entered in the National Open, in Vegas, next month. (It's my first tourney since Labor Day weekend last year... and I'm definitely not ready for it. I haven't played or studied at all during this time, and I feel very rusty!)

While browsing the list of advance entries I noticed Allan is also entered. He is currently rated 1743 and is entered in the Under 2000 Section, as am I. (Maybe we'll be paired up together! Of course, if he's been studying six hours a day, maybe I won't want to play him!)

I chatted with Allan, very briefly, at a local tourney here in CA last summer. He was very cordial.

During the upcoming tourney I'll try to find time to log in and report his progress. Of course, hopefully Allan will log in himself and post a game or two and give us a recap, either that very weekend or soon after. zz

If I see him and if I get a chance to talk to him, I will also ask him if a date for his one game match with Howard has been set yet.

lol

Naaa, there is a difference. You can claim that someone is unlikely to improve beyond a certain point. The choice of openings will always be a matter of taste. The scope of viable openings may be smaller than many people think, but there is still room for choice amongst those systems.

Okay, I just got back from the National Open, in Vegas.

I did okay, considering I hadn't been playing or studying in the last 9 months, since my last tourney. I went 2-2-2. Considering I had to play 1900+ rated players all six rounds (I'm 1832) I'll take it.

While I was there, I said hello to Allen. He told me something I think we all knew... that date of the one-game match had been pushed back. (Something about Howard not being able to make it, or was busy, or something.)

Allen finished with 1.5 points, and I'm sure he's disappointed in that result, especially after starting the tournament with 1.5! He drew an 1887 rated player in Round 1 and then beat a 1907 rated player in Round 2!

Two of his four defeats came against players who finished the tourney in the top ten spot, so that's not bad.

I checked out his games a few times, and it looked like he had decent positions a few times. His last round game ended late, and int hat game I knew he was struggling for a draw... he was down material.

Hopefully Allen will log in and post a game or two, for us to enjoy.

It will be interesting to see if Allen plays in an occasional tourney or two AFTER the bet is over with.

Peaked, imo.

No, wait, I mean piqued. I'd definitely be piqued on four straight losses to end a tourney.

Any updates?

Curious if the bet is still on and AC's current rating.

Allen is now 1750, you can look up any uscf member's rating on uschess.org.

I don't think choice in opening matters at all at this level. It's whatever he is comfortable with.

Also wow props to cunningham. Hitting 1700 relatively quickly... However I don't think he'll hit 2200 anytime soon or ever unless he is extremely dedicated to chess.

I agree. Well done AC.

+1 yup.

i mean shandrax really, u cant tell after almost a year if someone can attain 2200 or not....

anyway, been written already, usually a person should plateau after around 4 years if i remember correctly, in general.
cant remember the book tho, i ll try find it.

reason are on motivation, wich rating u attain, if u give up or not on chess earlier for w.e reason, etc.

each person learn differently but one thing is common tho, more u reach a high rating fast, more chance the % will be upward that u will attain a strong rating, imo 1750 in 1 year is plenty to attain 2200 easy if he keep up the work.

i mean 2200 is only master after all.....its not IM or GM ! and if were talking 2200 ufc its not even fide ...

i even have a book where a guy who was an ok player decide at 50 to reach master level( or IM cant remember really) and he wrote about it, interesting read

I expect the statistical logic behind most people hitting their plateau after 4 years is similar to making a statement like: "If you want to be rich then you should go buy a million dollar house since the most common shared characteristic amongst rich individuals is million+ dollar homes." There will obviously be an average time period after which most people will no longer improve, but that itself has nothing to do with plateauing as plateauing has the connotation of being unable to improve beyond that point, not unwilling. The latter undoubtedly being the cause of the plateau vastly more often than the former. For instance, Kasparov reached his peak rating in 1999. That was 14 years after he became world champion. And 29 years after he first started playing chess.