Win Streak

Guys who has the longest win streak?

Just to start off,
@svenos has a 333-game streak in Horde.

@CourageousCheckmate6 said in #1:

Guys who has the longest win streak?

Just to start off,
@svenos has a 333-game streak in Horde.

For example. I'm currently on a 53-game winning streak in bullet chess (not yet over). If I wanted, I could, with close to 100% probability, turn it into a much, much longer winning streak. For example, 153, or 253, or 353, or even 1053 wins in a row. Nothing special is required for this. Simply choose opponents who are much weaker than you at chess. The extreme opponents in this streak visible on my page shouldn't be used as a guide. The overwhelming majority of my wins in this streak were against much weaker opponents than these. For example, if you choose opponents with a rating level approximately 1200 points lower than yours, the expected score against them is approximately 729:1 in your favor (and that 1 is, with close to 100% probability, a disconnect). A streak of several hundred wins in a row is guaranteed here. You just have to play, and it will happen. If you're not too lazy to play much weaker players like this. I'm usually too lazy, but I decided to play this way a bit this time. I'll probably end this series soon. I'm too lazy to play much weaker players many more times. But I might not end it, and I might even beat much weaker opponents a few hundred more times in a row.

But I'm just curious. There's absolutely no point, I just want to see the highest value of a number (humans naturally want to see the extremes or elevate themselves when regarding a changeable value)!

@Inventor_1 said in #3:

For example. I'm currently on a 53-game winning streak in bullet chess (not yet over). If I wanted, I could, with close to 100% probability, turn it into a much, much longer winning streak. For example, 153, or 253, or 353, or even 1053 wins in a row. Nothing special is required for this. Simply choose opponents who are much weaker than you at chess. The extreme opponents in this streak visible on my page shouldn't be used as a guide. The overwhelming majority of my wins in this streak were against much weaker opponents than these. For example, if you choose opponents with a rating level approximately 1200 points lower than yours, the expected score against them is approximately 729:1 in your favor (and that 1 is, with close to 100% probability, a disconnect). A streak of several hundred wins in a row is guaranteed here. You just have to play, and it will happen. If you're not too lazy to play much weaker players like this. I'm usually too lazy, but I decided to play this way a bit this time. I'll probably end this series soon. I'm too lazy to play much weaker players many more times. But I might not end it, and I might even beat much weaker opponents a few hundred more times in a row.
To keep playing weaker players puts one at risk at being banned for boosting, though, does it not?

@CourageousCheckmate6 said in #1:

Guys who has the longest win streak?
Technically one could play thousands of games against Lichess's Stockfish level 1...

@IamNOTamod said in #5:

To keep playing weaker players puts one at risk at being banned for boosting, though, does it not?

What nonsense? Of course not! Playing against weaker opponents doesn't break any rules! Of course. In fact, it's even the opposite—you could say it's a form of charity. Many people actually pay money for this (the opportunity to play against stronger opponents).

@Inventor_1 said in #7:

What nonsense? Of course not! Playing against weaker opponents doesn't break any rules! Of course. In fact, it's even the opposite—you could say it's a form of charity. Many people actually pay money for this (the opportunity to play against stronger opponents).
Playing against weaker opponents to gain rating (boosting) is.

@IamNOTamod said in #8:

Playing against weaker opponents to gain rating (boosting) is.

Completely wrong. Of course not. Playing rated games against weaker opponents, in the vast majority of cases, doesn't increase your rating, it decreases it! It's not the same for everyone, but for the vast majority of players, that's the case. Chess is a game that tends toward draws. If I play an opponent with a rating just 400 points lower than me, then I have to beat them by at least about 9:1 just to keep my current rating. And with a rating difference of 1200 points, I have to beat them by about 729:1 just to keep my current rating. The 400 rule doesn't apply here, as far as I know. As far as I know, it only applies to FIDE ratings. But in any case, I almost never play rated games against players with a rating 400 points weaker than me. And especially not against those who are even weaker than me. It's not really advantageous for me. I lose too much rating on such games. Even with the 400 rule, it would probably be the same. My statistics clearly tell me: the higher the opponent's rating, the more profitable it is for me to play against them; the lower the opponent's rating, the less profitable it is for me to play against them. My statistics are like this at all time controls. And the vast majority of players are like this.

It's not boosting, it's boasting