I have beaten players with 2300+, and possibly am able to beat players with up to 2500.
Realistically speaking I could win 1 in 100 against someone with 2500, 1 in 50 against someone with 2400, 1 in 25 against someone with 2300.
The point is, if we win once, nothing prevents us from win again.
Also, how often do we lose because lack of attention and not from lack of knowledge? It is not always that we are outplayed, we usually get in a inferior position for some mistake easilly avoided and if we are outplayed after that is no longer relevant to the actual issue.
Then, what is our real rating? Suppose that we are in maximum concetration, that our mistakes will never be because of some oversight, but because of a total lack of knowlodge (eg we don't even know we made a mistake). What is our rating? maybe 200 points above? just 100? I always think about that, sometimes...
There is a tricky here, if you play like I described, but all others players make the same, then our rating actual is in fact our rating (for obivous reasons). But, that also show we can reach 200 points (maybe) above by working just in psychologic issues, no chess at all...
Practically every second user in any forum I have seen considered himself (much) higher rated. A running gag, alas nobody laughs any more.
Yeah, I have beaten them all up to GMs. Now what?
@will_is_myth "The point is, if we win once, nothing prevents us from win again."
I appreciate the spirit of this sentiment but I the think it's a false premise. When we win, it's because of many variables. Those variables are strongly influenced by the ability of the players. Ability can only be known by playing games. The games that are played are the consequence of that process - not the cause.
It reminds me of hitting a distant target with an arrow. If we eventually hit the target, we might think "Nothing is stopping me from doing that every time." but in practice, many things influence the path of the arrow.
This is a subjective sentence. I don't know how to explain it in English, but as an irony or metaphor (I dont know). 'nothing prevents' means 'the favorable circumstances have already been concretely shown once'. Obviously we are not dealing with formal logic here. Of course something prevents, otherwise it would win again always.
When we are able to win once we feel the potential to do it again. This is about 'spirit', or 'soul', or 'psyche' (call it what you like).
For example, in freestyle soccer there is a maneuver called ATW. When we first hit, the gap between the other hits decreases considerably.
In chess much of our success is related to our decision-making algorithm. If I had the fortunate opportunity to play only against 2300 players I would be doing something like ATW attempts (or any other skill). But in chess (unfortunately) we try to beat players we are already win (due to the rating system).
But, please, dont use formal logic. We are not that rational. Most players are better than they really are by simply correcting \ controlling some psychological 'flaws'.
Maybe that's what I was trying to say.
To prove that, let's say the player simply stops playing and studying, relaxes a week or more, has emotional self-control training, etc. (nothing strictly related to chess, no endgame or new opening ideas), so now the guy comes back like a new man and plays chess. This man has the potential to do better, paying more attention, can be faster this time, will avoid serious mistakes, etc. If this happens we will have to understand that he already had strictly chess skills lacking only other skills that are not strict to chess!
PS: My original post questions what our real limit (measured in rating or a hypothetical rating) will be on strict chess knowledge.
Take your rating is how easy you beat your opponent.
If you have the same rating it would be the same difficulty.
If you have a +300 opponent you still have a chance but less, as you described.
Rating points is like your consistency of playing power. !!! Just because you had a strong coffee or a lucky blunder by your opponent does not mean you always can bring that playing level.
It is like lifting in the gym. You could lift 100 pounds once, and saying you are strong as someone lift that 100 pounds 10 times .
One thing to consider is that, statistically, you are supposed to beat a 200+ rated player some of the time. I believe a gap of 200 rating points amounts to a 26% expected score. I suppose they could all be draws, but it's not unreasonable to expect a few wins in a large sample. If you NEVER win, or escape with a few draws, then one of you is over/under rated.
People confuse ratings with static, immutatble pronouncements. "I AM 2300", for instance. Really, though, ratings are more akin to a trend. If I beat someone rated 2300, that's great, but if it's only once, then that's within the statistical range of my rating. One time means nothing, in other words. Being 2300 means performing at a 2300 level over the long haul, and unless I consistently perform at a 2300 level, I'm not 2300 level. Of course, beating a higher rated player can be great for morale and inspire you to train harder, but you need to do it more than the mathematically-expected ratio to truly mean anything.
(On that note, often more revealing isn't who you beat but who you lose to. I've beaten some good players, but I've also lost consistently to some weaker ones. If I want to be 2300, I need to stop losing against 1800s as a start! A true 2300 would almost never lose against such a player. That suggests, as much as I'd like to pretend otherwise, my rating is probably where it should be.)
I won a flawless game against a 2000 player with 5 centipawn loss and since I did it once my true rating must be stronger than stockfish.
To be honest there is no real way to find your "true rating". It will always be fluctuating. It's just that the more you study, and the more you practice, the higher your "average" rating increases. But great question by the way.
"The point is, if we win once, nothing prevents us from win again."
You win thanks to opponent's mistakes and better the opponents are, less often they make mistakes. And mistakes are not binary, 1 or 0, there are blunders, inaccuracies, not strong moves, weak moves, average moves, and some mistakes spotted by patzers are spotted by you also, mistakes spotted by you are not spotted by patzers and some mistakes spotted by those 2500 are not spottedy by you. Thats why you beat weak players all the time or most of the time and thats why you beat someone rated 2500 once in one hundred games. You make more mistakes than him, you make them more often and he is able to spot your mistakes better than you can spot his.
And chess are played by human beings and if someone rated 2500 is tired and cant concentrate on the game, he is officialy 2500 but is playing like 2300 (2200, 2000 etc), that plays some role as well.
At least for these reasons you are able to win once against 2500, I am able to win against you once in 1000 games (well, maybe, I am not stating anything like that :D), but thats not thanks to our constant ability, its due to stronger opponents momentarily disability. Thats why ranking in long term matters and one win against very strong opponent is something we are not able to do again.
Lazi123 was fallen asleep.
