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.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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".

Your knowledge of the FIDE rating system is outdated.

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

[QUOTE=Allen C;17533371
As far as the nature of the match it will just be one rapidish game with a coinflip deciding the colors. The bet isn't who will be the best player after one year, it's just who will win that game. It's gambling, we're gamblers. Plus that way the loser can still claim they would have won if the format were a week long Kasparov vs Karpov struggle.

[/QUOTE]

Ok, one game.
What happends if it ends in a draw?


Lets assume Cunningham is at 1400 today and Lederer 1900.
Its a hell of a climb in one year for sure.

Mr Garry Kasparov started out at chess at age 6, went to a chess club at age 7 and reached Russias class 1 at age 9 (About 2000 rated.)
The year after that he reached Master class, about 2150

Today, once in a while the chessworld discovers a 12year old Grandmaster who has just been playing for a few years, and its certainly a lot easier to reach 1900 than 2500

But the big problem is that these kind of climbs are almost unheard of from chessplayers already at an adult age.

This is a pretty convenient and apparently unassailable position to take... I might ask how you know that no amateur has ever studied chess extensively for a year and I'm sure you'd tell me that this must be true since nobody has gained 900 points in a year, right? This is one of the most talented young players in the US:



2 - 2.5 years to go from 1400 to 2100.

You just sold a copy of your book cause I have no clue what either of you are trying to get at.

Allen, would you consider venturing into the politics forum and destroying all the politard nits in every thread with "Obamacare" in the title?

Even though I never read the politics forum I second this^^ request.

Hire Nakamura.

Ok, I mean, you disagree with me, whatever. I highly doubt there's ever been a beginner chess player who decided to study chess 6 hours a day for a year, so no one can really tell what's achievable for someone with that level of study.

But I know a lot of cases of people reaching 2100 within about 2 years of playing serious chess - and without necessarily following any intensive training program. I don't think it's hard at all to believe that someone could do it in a year if they put in enough work. But okay, until someone tries it we're only speculating.

Ha, it depends.

I am in a similar situation as HL. 2275 FIDE many years ago; inactive for a small eternity.

How strong am I currently? Well, I am still crushing sub-2000 players in friendly blitz or rapid games. It's only against 2100+ players that my lack of practice really shows.

So, I think that the loss is probably around 200 points.

I think Allen is taking the challenge sufficiently seriously to have a fighting chance.

so you obv still play, that's different than howard afaik

Once or twice a year, when someone wants to check out my strength.

HL has likely played an occasional game too, methinks.