is there a maximum to elo? • page 1/1 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

rogernykterstein

#1

is there a maximum to elo?

openingsmatter621616

#2

@rogernykterstein said in #1:

is there a maximum to elo?
yes. the limit is hard coded to 4000 maximum.

@rogernykterstein said in #1: > is there a maximum to elo? yes. the limit is hard coded to 4000 maximum.

Windy_Valley

#3

@openingsmatter621616 said in #2:

yes. the limit is hard coded to 4000 maximum.
StockFish 18 is gonna have around 4150 elo

@openingsmatter621616 said in #2: > yes. the limit is hard coded to 4000 maximum. StockFish 18 is gonna have around 4150 elo

Stadtfuchs1111

#4

In theory there will be a maximum in Elo but it's not really known with 100% accuracy to us yet as Chess hasn't been solved yet and there are too many unknown move orders so until chess has been completely solved, there will always be slight improvements which might increase the maximum possible Elo point amount. That being said, this would most likely only affect Computers as Human players simply aren't able to reach a rating level this high. It has been determined (might change also change slightly upwards in the next 100 years or so) that in theory the absolute maximum "official" Elo not lichess.org or chess.com rating possible could be 3000 Elo. Now, that said you can see already now that this is an almost impossible feat to reach as even dominant players like Magnus Carlson or Garry Kasparov at their peak where both still far away from reaching this theoretical goal. Given, that the international chess competition is becoming stronger I would assume that this makes it even harder for top players ever reaching this high rating as they simply wouldn't be able to win every game any longer.

openingsmatter621616

#5

@Windy_Valley said in #3:

StockFish 18 is gonna have around 4150 elo
what I meant was, on Lichess, no account can have 4000+ .

@Windy_Valley said in #3: > StockFish 18 is gonna have around 4150 elo what I meant was, on Lichess, no account can have 4000+ .

lizani

#6

The sky is the limit!
However, in recent years, FIDE's statistical analysis suggests their ratings are inflated and they have introduced measures to compensate. That means it will be even harder in future to surpass Magnus Carlsen's peak of 2882 from 2019. I suspect the top humans will stabilise around 2800-2830.

The sky is the limit! However, in recent years, FIDE's statistical analysis suggests their ratings are inflated and they have introduced measures to compensate. That means it will be even harder in future to surpass Magnus Carlsen's peak of 2882 from 2019. I suspect the top humans will stabilise around 2800-2830.

petri999

#7

inflation was concern something like 10 years ago. But no human can be say 400 pts stronger that top GM i.e win 10 points in 11 point match on avertage against the other player. Chess engines can but not over another top chess engine

sausage4mash

#8

ELO is relative so no , next question :)

sausage4mash

#9

ok had a think about this , there maybe a limit as there is only so many games a guy can win in a lifetime before he dies of old age .

I ask gpt3O because it is smarter than me

If a chess genius were born at 5 years old, became a Grandmaster early, lived to 100, and never lost a single game, their Elo rating would theoretically grow indefinitely. However, in practice, it would be limited by factors like rating inflation, available competition, and FIDE’s rating system.

Determining a single number is tricky because the Elo system is designed to be relative. In theory, if someone never loses, their Elo could keep increasing indefinitely. In practice, however, several factors come into play:

Diminishing Returns:
As a player’s rating rises, the expected score against even strong opponents becomes almost 1. This means that wins yield ever smaller gains. For example, if a 400-point rating difference typically gives only a small gain per win, once you’re far above your competition, even a perfect record won’t boost your rating by much.

Opponent Ratings:
If you’re always playing opponents whose ratings are being adjusted upward as you dominate them, your gains per win diminish further. In a realistic system, you wouldn’t be facing opponents whose ratings remain static at a much lower level.

K-Factor Adjustments:
The FIDE system (and many others) uses a K-factor that typically decreases for higher-rated players. This further limits how much rating you can add per game as you climb higher.

Putting It All Together:

Theoretical Perspective:
If a chess genius never loses and only plays the strongest opponents, the Elo rating could keep rising. In a purely mathematical sense, there’s no absolute cap.

Practical Estimation:
When we factor in diminishing returns and a decreasing K-factor, simulations and analyses often suggest that even a perfect-playing human might eventually plateau somewhere in the 3500–4000 Elo range. (Some simplified simulations, if not carefully modeled, might show much higher numbers over a long lifespan, but those typically don’t account for the fact that gains become negligible as ratings diverge too far from an opponent’s.)

So, while there is no fixed “maximum Elo” in theory, for a human operating under real-world competitive conditions, a never-losing chess genius might realistically peak around 3500–4000 Elo. Computers, on the other hand, can (and do) achieve ratings well above this level because their systems and evaluation functions work under different assumptions.

ok had a think about this , there maybe a limit as there is only so many games a guy can win in a lifetime before he dies of old age . I ask gpt3O because it is smarter than me If a chess genius were born at 5 years old, became a Grandmaster early, lived to 100, and never lost a single game, their Elo rating would theoretically grow indefinitely. However, in practice, it would be limited by factors like rating inflation, available competition, and FIDE’s rating system. Determining a single number is tricky because the Elo system is designed to be relative. In theory, if someone never loses, their Elo could keep increasing indefinitely. In practice, however, several factors come into play: Diminishing Returns: As a player’s rating rises, the expected score against even strong opponents becomes almost 1. This means that wins yield ever smaller gains. For example, if a 400-point rating difference typically gives only a small gain per win, once you’re far above your competition, even a perfect record won’t boost your rating by much. Opponent Ratings: If you’re always playing opponents whose ratings are being adjusted upward as you dominate them, your gains per win diminish further. In a realistic system, you wouldn’t be facing opponents whose ratings remain static at a much lower level. K-Factor Adjustments: The FIDE system (and many others) uses a K-factor that typically decreases for higher-rated players. This further limits how much rating you can add per game as you climb higher. Putting It All Together: Theoretical Perspective: If a chess genius never loses and only plays the strongest opponents, the Elo rating could keep rising. In a purely mathematical sense, there’s no absolute cap. Practical Estimation: When we factor in diminishing returns and a decreasing K-factor, simulations and analyses often suggest that even a perfect-playing human might eventually plateau somewhere in the 3500–4000 Elo range. (Some simplified simulations, if not carefully modeled, might show much higher numbers over a long lifespan, but those typically don’t account for the fact that gains become negligible as ratings diverge too far from an opponent’s.) So, while there is no fixed “maximum Elo” in theory, for a human operating under real-world competitive conditions, a never-losing chess genius might realistically peak around 3500–4000 Elo. Computers, on the other hand, can (and do) achieve ratings well above this level because their systems and evaluation functions work under different assumptions.