Yeah, just I did some more thinking; If someone is rated 1200 because they're new and they haven't learned a lot of tactics and strategy yet, then yes; If someone is rated 1200 because they know their stuff but they're slow, then the time odds would be quite helpful.
1200 player vs. GM
Sort:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
You shouldn't underestimate what a bad player given a lot of time can calculate.
Please, don't flatter youself.
Because being good at chess is all about calculating.
Given enough time, a bad player can "calculate out positional understanding", strategy, and potential endgame positions that could arise from long tactical sequences.
Fezzik wrote:
oinquarki wrote:
...If someone is rated 1200 because they know their stuff but they're slow, then the time odds would be quite helpful.
I've never seen a 1200 player who "know[s] their stuff" that well.
I mean compared to a 1600-1700 player, not a GM. And I know it's rare, but I've seen players (mostly seniors) who have low ratings mostly because they calculate very slowly, so they play a bunch of good moves and then lose on time.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
It would be like giving a simultaneous against 6 x 20 = 120 players where you had 3 minutes per move for each.
You shouldn't underestimate what a bad player given a lot of time can calculate.
No, because the GM doesn't have to keep track of 120 games...just one
A player can't calculate what he can't see
mtguy8787 wrote:
Because being good at chess is all about calculating.
Given enough time, a bad player can "calculate out positional understanding", strategy, and potential endgame positions that could arise from long tactical sequences.
Even against their peers, GMs fare well or poorly based on previous analysis e.g. memorized home preparation. If GMs could calculate it out over the board every time there would be no need for the intensive prep they do.
So even the best players can't do what you're describing. Calculation even at the GM level can't make up for the knowledge/patterns in your long term memory.
Or were you just kidding... hard to read sarcasm in a post, sorry if I didn't catch it.
As a 1700 player, I can say that nobody will shut up.
I am just hoping that by the time anyone reaches 1700, they'll be humble enough to realize by how much they are outclassed by the real deal GMs
The only thing having more time than the GM for any class player would do would be to check for tactical calculations. Against the GM, this is useless they made an ultra-rare blunder.
And even with enough time, a class player can't find a master-level tactical sequence. I would know -- I've spent hours on chesstempo problems that were 600 points above my rating -- to no avail.
The class player can think for 50 hours per move, and it will not allow them to find a superior strategy or positional idea any more than if they thought for 1 hour.
Youre basically saying that the class playing sitting there thinking "I go there, and he goes there... I go there and he goes there. Or if I go there, and he goes there. Or maybe I go there and he goes there..." for 6 hours per move will allow them to realize a superior strategy or evaluate the position at a high level.
Which of course is a joke and shows what a joke you are -- that you think this.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
mtguy8787 wrote:
Because being good at chess is all about calculating.
Given enough time, a bad player can "calculate out positional understanding", strategy, and potential endgame positions that could arise from long tactical sequences.
Even against their peers, GMs fare well or poorly based on previous analysis e.g. memorized home preparation. If GMs could calculate it out over the board every time there would be no need for the intensive prep they do.
So even the best players can't do what you're describing. Calculation even at the GM level can't make up for the knowledge/patterns in your long term memory.
Or were you just kidding... hard to read sarcasm in a post, sorry if I didn't catch it.
This is ridiculous. What GMs have remembered are aids to their calculation and guide their calculations. It is false to suggest that GMs don't have to calculate much over the board.
Take the endgame: There's lots of material on the endgame, as much learnable detail on it available as there is on the openings. Some people might be seduced into thinking that the endgame is almost a perfectly learnable thing. For example that they'd know exactly what to do given a certain situation. But then you put a position in front of them, and suddenly... it's not so easy after all. They have to calculate tons of moves and come up with ideas over the board. AND I NEVER SAID OR CLAIMED IT WOULD MAKE UP FOR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OR VOLUMES OF KNOWLEDGE, I SAID OR CLAIMED TIME WOULD MAKE UP FOR IT.
Look this is all nonsense, I'm sick of arguing semantics on the internet, especially when people are trying to throw ludicrous strawmen at me about things I never said anything like. I never said it would "make up for memory/knowledge", I said that given enough time the 1200-rated player would probably win. Maybe I will upgrade that to 1700 and then maybe people will shut up.
I never said GMs don't calculate much, of course they calculate a lot when the position calls for it.
It seems like you're either suggesting calculation is a process of elimination where the more moves a player calculates, the stronger their play is. Or
You suggest that strength of play increases with time nearly without bound (e.g. a 1200 rated player gaining over 1000 points and a GM losing over 1000 points).
Either way I have to disagree. As you said in this very quote, what we know guides our calculation. If we don't know much, or if we have all the misconceptions about chess that every 1200 player holds, then the amount of calculation will have very little to do with the value of that calculation.
Quantity does not make up for quality in the amounts you're talking about. I can date one attractive woman, and it will be better than 100 dates with a dog, 1000 dates with a dog, and even 10,000 dates with a dog. A GM can, using only his previous knowledge and no calculation, will see better moves than a 1200 rated player can see in 100 minutes, 1000 minutes, or 10,000 minutes.
As I said, 1200s wouldn't know how to use all this additional time to their advantage
It seems I have involved myself in a typical hypothetical ratings situation, oops
uhohspaghettio wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
A GM can, using only his previous knowledge and no calculation, will see better moves than a 1200 rated player can see in 100 minutes, 1000 minutes, or 10,000 minutes.
Look, there is something to what you're saying. For example, if a 1200 doesn't understand why it's bad to allow their opponent put their knight on an outpost, or perhaps more critically if a Queen is better than two Rooks in a situation where Rook movement is being hampered.
So for strategic principles, yes the GM will win out so I will agree with you on that. He will also win the opening. However for pure tactics, time wins every time. Even if you have to check for every damn possible move on the board, time will win.
If you can't get a tactic in tactics trainer (or any puzzle whatsoever), it's because you're not stretching your ply deep enough. Or maybe you're not saying "ok, I move there, then he can't do anything to stop me doing this on the next move", because non-forcing moves are hard to find in tactics. With 10 hours you would ALWAYS find the tactic, you couldn't not find it. Even if you have to check almost every single move. Sure, maybe it would take you 20 minutes to find something a GM found in 1 minute, but you guys are just not being rational in some of what you're saying.
It happens all the time that GMs miss tactics because of time pressure or because they didn't realize there was a win. These are often what form puzzles then. The difference is that we KNOW there's a win there and we have all the time we need to find it.
I will not be replying back, you should not assume that I agree in any way with or can't think of any counterarguments about any following replies just because I don't reply back again.
Hmm, I think I see what you're saying a little better now. When I think of giving a 1200 lots of time, I'm thinking of what I would do as a 1200 in such a game... which is calculate for a little bit and then settle on a bad move. Kind of like what you're saying about the tactics trainer, we even miss puzzles we "should" have gotten sometimes like you said (time constraints or laziness).
You're saying if the 1200 really did spend all ____ minutes/hours. If they tried their best, and never settled on a move they didn't think was the very best, then they wouldn't fall for all these bad tactics they normally get into. And that makes sense I see your point.
There aren't any masters who come around to my club, but a few have stopped by in the past. My problem with them is I get into these really difficult situations right out of the opening. There was nothing tactically or even (to my mind anyway) strategically wrong with what I did, but suddenly I'm feeling like I'm in trouble and I don't know why. (I usually tell myself if I could only get to move 20 in an equal position I could win... not that I necessarily think so but I'm trying to encourage myself here :).
So I think in a practical situation there are certain problems a 1200 player will face. One being laziness, but ok we can throw that out for the sake of argument. The other is I think their position will be really difficult early on in the game. Sure a GM will make many tactical blunders in a blitz game, but if you give them a strategically winning position, then their errors (and they will make them) won't amount to enough to turn the tide.
I'm sure you've had blitz games like this where you have a very comfortable position, that certain point where you think "ok, now I'm 95% sure I'm going to win because my opponent has nothing he can do." I think the GM would reach a position like this very quickly.
On chess tempo I've spent as much as 30 minutes before on one puzzle determined to work it all out. And it's great when I get it right. Sometimes though I simply miss a move, even when I've spent a lot of time, and even when I think I've found a forcing combination. Chess is so complex I don't think a 1200 would be able to work it out... because even when they find that really good move, it might turn out to be bad. GMs have memorized so many openings and tactical patterns that they'll spot these mistakes instantly.
You underestimate grandmasters.
A grandmaster playing 5 seconds per move could beat a class C player (1400-1600) playing 6 hours per move.
uhohspaghettio, try playing a GM(or any player far better than you) with time advantage on your part and then maybe you'll rethink your bold claim.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
God some of the people on this site are such idiots. I'm off.
Hey, anybody want to do a time odds experiment like this?
Spaghettio, I'll give you 14 days a move to my 10 minutes.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
God some of the people on this site are such idiots. I'm off.
Just triple quoting because I couldn't resist... Is that all it takes to get you off?
Without additional odds (e.g., a queen perhaps), a 1200-rated player would not be a GM even with unlimited additional time. Such a player does not get appreciably better with more time to think.