Author: Nicholas Cooper
Date: 22:48:41 07/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 1999 at 12:42:07, KarinsDad wrote: >On July 28, 1999 at 07:19:25, Phil Dixon wrote: > >> >> >>A recent issue of the Colorado Chess Informant covering the 1998 U.S. >>Championship, featured mini-interviews with several of the players. GM Joel >>Benjamin was asked about the relative strength of 1700-, 2200- and 2700-players. >>Joel said that a 1700 would probably have slightly better chances against a 2200 >>than a 2200 vs. a 2700. He reasoned that 2200s are erratic, i.e., their playing >>strength is more likely to fluctuate than that of GMs. >> >>Joel was also asked how he would do against WCC Champion Garry Kasparov. >>Benjamin responded that if he could get an opening edge against a GM of his own >>strength, he'd most likely win. However, in the same scenario, Kasparov would >>most likely draw or even beat him. For Joel to have a decent shot, Kasparov >>would have to give him the White pieces, and draw odds. >>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >>The above piece is from Inside Chess Online. A fine magazine, IMO. But I would >>be interested in others comments about this article. Does the average GM need >>White AND draw odds to have a chance against K? >> >>Does a 1700 have a BETTER chance against a 2200 than a GM against K? It seems >>like the answer is yes, IMO. He does have to play aggressively and constantly >>strive for the initiative. > >I would think so. I am about a 1700 player and have had 2200 players on the >ropes a few times. I have never managed to win (they somehow seem to squirm out, >but I do know of cases where 1500 players have beaten 2200 players). Kasparov >has lost very few games within the last 15 years and I believe that all (or >almost all) of those loses have been against players within 200 points of him. I >think the average GM does not stand much of a chance against him (at least not >in practice, regardless of what the statistics say). I agree and think this can also be applied to any of the so-called "Super GMs" such as Anand, Shirov, Morozovich, Krammik etc. I truly believe that the differnce between the Super GMs and the "average GM" (as if there's any such thing!!) is very large and probably larger than the difference between a 1700 and 2200 player, since these top players develop many new ideas which are then adopted by the other GMs if succesful... >Now that I have said this, let me put in a caveat. I think an average GM has >less chance of beating Kasparov than a 1700 player has of beating a 2200 player. >However, I think an average GM has a better chance to draw Kasparov than a 1700 >player has of drawing a 2200 player. Quite possibly but I think this is mainly due to more of the top level games being drawn... perhaps because they're getting closer to playing "perfect" chess and I *think* that a "perfect" game (one without any mistakes at all) would be a draw. > The reasons for this are: 1) GK will not >often give up the win, but he will occasionally give up the draw, especially if >he only needs draws to win a tournament and 2) there is a greater rating >difference between a 1700 player and a 2200 player than there is between an >average GM and Kasparov. > >> >>Can a 1700 win a 10 game match against a 2200 player? > >There is a statistical possiblity. However, I do not see it ever happening in >real life unless some other elements are there (the 2200 player being ill, the >1700 player really being a 2100 player, etc.). > I agree entirely... >KarinsDad :) Nick Cooper
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.