Will a human ever make 2900?

[Henk]

Also when a world champion draughts plays chess he gains an ELO of 2000-2200 within no time. So second argument that not much chess knowledge is needed to achieve that level.

[jefk]

[quote="Henk"]Also when a world champion draughts plays chess he gains an ELO of 2000-2200 within no time. So second argument that not much chess knowledge is needed to achieve that level.[/quote]

you mean Jannes vd Wal maybe, but he knew about chess for years and obviously was a smart guy.

For the rest , with respect of 2900 rating, comparing with old chess players doesn´t make much sense for me, knowledge by now has been increasing, culture as well, use of computers, and so on.

Achieving Elo 2900 imho is certainly possible for Carlsen if he would study and started applying the latest -and best- opening theory. His current strategy of avoiding some lines makes sense, but now he has shown he can play chess he might also start learning the ´best´ lines, which would give him some extra rating points. Even although chess is a draw (yes it is..), knowing such lines in detail thus including and sidelines and refutations, does help, you know. Look eg at his game with the QGD against Anand, where he lost.

jef

PS how can i say this as patzer you may wonder, well some experience in computer chess does help, you know, without a strong book (worth
about 80 pnts in my estimate, against at average/lousy book) i wouldnt
have achieved position within the top3 in standard for years now on ICC
with my computer account (bookbuilder). NB so difference strong book and very lousy -or no- book is probably about 150 points ± 50

PS2 first review of my book (kindle version):
http://www.amazon.com/review/R96K1FZF39WOM
paperback version on Lulu
http://www.lulu.com/shop/jef-kaan/bette ... 37014.html
(soon also coming on Amaon)

[reflectionofpower]

[quote="jefk"][quote="Henk"]

PS how can i say this as patzer you may wonder, well some experience in computer chess does help, you know, without a strong book (worth
about 80 pnts in my estimate, against at average/lousy book) i wouldnt
have achieved position within the top3 in standard for years now on ICC
with my computer account (bookbuilder). NB so difference strong book and very lousy -or no- book is probably about 150 points ± 50[quote="jefk"]

So are saying Carlsen can gain a 100 pts by better book? That really doesn't apply in the human aspect of chess. In computer chess I agree with you. If that was the case you would see one person who just went opening book study crazy and he would be ahead of the pack. As it is Carlsen does not apply most of his effort in openings and yet he is ahead of everyone. If he went this way all he would do is catch with those who dig deep and it would be nullified.

[Henk]

No I was thinking of Ton Sijbrands who had the World record blindfold simultaneous draughts playing on 32 boards when he was 65 years old in 2014. He played chess too.

Toughest part was probably to keep awake.

[jefk]

[quote="reflectionofpower"]
So are saying Carlsen can gain a 100 pts by better book?
[/quote]

well not 100 points maybe, i wrote he probably can get to 2900
in my opinion, that´s less than 100 points.

not ´better book´ but gradually acquiring better opening
knowledge, but not spending all his time on this ofcourse.
but that´s up to him. Judging-suspecting this not only
with my computer experience but also by reading about
human chess, eg an old hawk as Kortsnoj said he wasnt
much impressed by the level in the last world championship.

´Nullified by others also having good knowledge´. maybe
but at least not losing (like the Qgd example i gave).
Sometimes with my account and stockfish i still cannot
win against Arasanx who has improved his opening book,
but at least i hardly ever am losing, and the winning points
eg against crafty or others keep my comp rating above 2850 ors
on ICC standard, used to be more than 2900 but theres now
more competition amongst the comps. My top 1 bullet
reating there is about 2950 or so btw.

NB other example i´m also not impressed by these ´super-Gm´s
when they play lines with d3 in the Spanish, maybe avoiding
Marshall gambit but even then there are other anti-marshall lines.
And their avoidance of the Sicilian with Black, eg the Najdorf.
Human chess rating is often determined by your weakest points,
in Anand´s case probably endgame-endurance strategy,
in Carlsen´s case imho applying opening theory and sharp lines
like eg Kasparov often used to do successfully. Now you can
say that this is just his style, like Karpov, but even Karpov
had better relative opening knowledge at the time it seems.

Anyway, if it´s not Carlsen then maybe Anish Giri will get
above 2900 or so, and the next world champ. And he seems
to know -and not avoiding- also some of these modern sharp lines

jef

[jefk]

[quote="Henk"]No I was thinking of Ton Sijbrands who had the World record blindfold simultaneous draughts playing on 32 boards when he was 65 years old in 2014. He played chess too.
Toughest part was probably to keep awake.[/quote]

keeping awake playing chess ?
(yes that´s certainly important for rating i guess)
or maybe draughts against these 32 boards..

[Henk]

He had to stay awake for more than 40 hours when playing draughts of course. His score was about 70% and that was enough to set a record.

[jefk]

[quote="Henk"]He had to stay awake for more than 40 hours when playing draughts of course. His score was about 70% and that was enough to set a record.[/quote]

yep i know, but was joking a little. see eg the first picture on this page

http://en.chessbase.com/post/sochi-g8-a ... or-carlsen

ok Carlsen made a draw, but also didn´t attempt
to win eg with Slav counterattack (yes that´s possible
sometimes, although it would be not easy against Anand).

jef

[RoadWarrior]

It's like an expert player spends much time in refining his game and then someone gets a pet rock and it plays better than him,heehee.

Does a submarine "swim" faster than every fish?

Does a car "run" faster than every human?

Does a program "play" better chess than every human?

Nobody should be surprised when our creations surpass us in many areas. It's just a psychological quirk that defeat in intellectual activities such as chess tracks the human ego down to its lair.

[Uri Blass]

PS how can i say this as patzer you may wonder, well some experience in computer chess does help, you know, without a strong book (worth
about 80 pnts in my estimate, against at average/lousy book) i wouldnt
have achieved position within the top3 in standard for years now on ICC
with my computer account (bookbuilder). NB so difference strong book and very lousy -or no- book is probably about 150 points ± 50

So are saying Carlsen can gain a 100 pts by better book? That really doesn't apply in the human aspect of chess. In computer chess I agree with you. If that was the case you would see one person who just went opening book study crazy and he would be ahead of the pack. As it is Carlsen does not apply most of his effort in openings and yet he is ahead of everyone. If he went this way all he would do is catch with those who dig deep and it would be nullified.

I believe that Carlsen can gain easily a 100 elo points by a better book.

My guess is that if you give Carlsen the right to use the following database in his games against humans then he can be 100 elo better and the same also for other top players(note that the book include not only moves but also analysis by chess engines) but I consider it as book and not as using engines because all the calculation is earlier than the game.

http://database.chessbase.com/js/apps/database/

Same is for other top players and
the main problem for top players is that I do not believe that they can memorize all of it.

Note that I also do not know about a good chess program for building a chess repertoire today and I think that a good chess program can help to decide what is more important to add in the repertoire based on statistics (game that people played in the past and evaluation of chess engines) and what is more important to memorize assuming that you cannot memorize everything.