He failed to mention the prep disparity. The top 10-20 players have all done EXTENSIVE prep against one another and know hundreds of games of each of the players and their respective patterns and strengths and weaknesses. When a top 200 player goes against a top 10, they prep like mad and have tons of material to pull from to prep. But when Magnus (or another top 10) goes against a top 200 player, he doesnt have as much material to prep with, nor is it realistic for him to prep against this one-time opponent as extensively as he preps against caruana or nepo. Preparation appears to account for about 100-150 points of rating. Meaning, when Magnus plays against an opponent without preparing extensively, he is playing at a 2750ish level instead of 2880 like when he plays someone he is heavily prepped against. In the same way, when a 2700 rated player goes against Magnus, they prep extensively (not to mention all of his games they have often times watched for entertainment), boosting their respective level of play against him, so they might even be playing above their rating at a 2720-2750 rating against Magnus. This preparation mismatch is a result of people being human and not having infinite time to go 100% against every opponent. And it is this preparation mismatch that really makes playing lower rank players very risky, because the difference in rating can quickly vanish because of the preparation disparity. EDIT: Adding this from @Kenton Hicks , as his reasoning about draws may supersede the issue of prep disparity. "Elite grandmasters aren't afraid of losing to lower rated players (like you imply, they'll lose probably 1% of the time or less); they're afraid of drawing lower rated opponents....My opinion is that I think if SuperGMs wanted to prep for and play lower-rated opponents, they would, and they would do as expected based on elo. It's not just that they can't because they don't have enough time, energy, or ability to. (In fact, they have prep teams of very strong players and more resources to do just that if they wanted.) It's usually that they lack incentive to prep for them or play them because it's simply not worth it. Even with great prep and better play than their lower-rated opponent, they still have a good chance of drawing and losing elo points, because perfect chess is an equal game."
I think this is a generally true observation, that the super GMs are better prepared for one another than lower rated players, but I think that this is only a secondary symptom of what Ben was talking about, and that the primary risk simply lies in the rating disparity. Super GMs choose to devote that much more time preparing for other super GMs rather than low rated GMs because there is a better risk-reward ratio. This probably exacerbates the risk, like you point out, but if those same lower rated GMs were higher rated, there would probably no longer be a systemic preparation disparity either.
They have a similar amount of material on the top 50-200, but less time to study them. Whereas everyone is always studying the top 20 players in the world, prepping against them or not
This is partially the reason why Fischer wound up hating the game. Chess has a clinical treatment among GMs. They want to memorize a bunch of crap instead of just playing the game and doing analysis in the moment.
There was exactly ZERO chance Ben would mention that. kind of a point; it simply requires him to be too sympathetic to the top players; that just ain't Ben's realm sadly.
now the big question is if these super gms just arther prep against other players knowing they have no chance against magnus or if they all extrensively prep for magnus to get a game off the champion yet magnus just too gud and smashes them all :D
The "prison chess" example was used for a reason. For a while, the highest rated player in the world was a prisoner, for precisely that reason. He even wrote to FIDE warning of the dangers of "closed pool" ratings.
@@anshagrawal254 Claude Bloodgood. He was "only" the second highest rated USCF, but it was a tricky situation nevertheless - Wiki has an article on him.
I was lucky enough to play several extremely strong players back when there were tourneys with only 1 section. For example: Lombardy (on B#1 in 1968), John Grefe (B#1 1974), Larry Evans (B#3 1974), John Watson (B#2 1976). I never beat a player over 2400 (did beat several 2200 & 2300s), but these games were all memorable. Players today may have a chance to win much higher prizes in Class sections, but they're missing out on a great experience!
This focus on rating is quite detrimental to chess. Focus should be on winning tournaments and competitions, and that's how the person position in ranking should be judged
That's the reason why, when I play tournaments, I register for the highest section that I am allowed to, even if the average rating there is way above my own rating. I like to play higher rated players, because even if I only have a mediocre result, I might actually gain rating points. Plus the experience I get!
Yeah it's probably better for your own improvement to play stronger players. It's a bit like CounterStrike or DOTA 2 in that playing people your own or lower skill level lets you get away with forming bad habits because you don't get punished for it.
It makes sense. If you're much higher rated than someone you have so many points to lose and so little to gain. Plus psychologically the pressure is on, thinking "I should beat them." I think this happens regardless of your rating for many people, obviously not to such an extent, but similar elements are at play when you have a 1500 against a 1300 or something like that.
Half the reason I try to get better at the things I'm good at is so that the challenges I'm struggling with now become easy. For example with cycling I often do shorter rides just because I used to find that length very tiring and I like to remind myself how far I've come. If I ever became top 10 in chess I'd love nothing more than smacking 2600s and then reminding myself that there was a time (now) when I thought 2600s were gods.
Sure, but what if the difference between "top 10" and "top 75" is much less than outsiders think? If you're in the top 10 you have a career, if you are at #75 nobody cares. Maybe chess should be incentivized differently somehow? Or maybe top 10 players could be required to "defend their rating" more often?
@@TheToxicBishop Right, but to my mind, if you are top 10 in the world but you aren't defending your top 10ness, you aren't actually top 10 in the world. JMO
That makes a lot of sense because when I was playing for rating in Yahoo Games stuff to see how high I could get it (rating didn't mean much as it was relative to the rooms you played in, so it was for fun), I'd deliberately pick the people around or higher than me to minimize losses and maximize my chances of upping it. But because I'd play anyone later anyway, when I'd get a lower-rated player and lose just once due to something unexpected (like pocketing the 8-ball early in Pool), it would plummet, lol! That being said, perhaps rating should be based on a player's "performance" and not who wins, loses or draws. Like, you know how GM norms are based on player performance of 2600? What if that performance number was the rating instead and it was like an average of the 20 most recent games or something? That way players could just play normally and play whomever and their rating would stay about where it is unless they improve or get rusty.
You could scale up what Ben is saying too. Say Magnus played a 100 game match against Stockfish, who's rated like 3600. Magnus could lose 99 games and get 1 draw, and he'd still rank up pretty considerably. I guess this is one of the flaws in the ELO rating system, that lower rated players are rewarded too heavily.
Exactly. Because the ELO rating is originally designed for 2 outcomes: you either win or lose, draw doesn't count. In chess, the draws affect rating points, and chess is theoretically a draw game, so that causes problems at high level.
Another thing is that 1 rating point among the top tier of chess is worth more than 1 rating point in lower tiers. Example the skill difference 50 points means among super GMs is bigger than between 2450 and 2500.
I wonder if anyone here today wishes Niemann said something like "I don't need to discuss the game, it speaks for itself" and that was followed by a buzzing noise when he stood up.
Ben is right. A few months ago, I did some statistical analysis and posted the results on my blog (e4stat). 2700+ super GMs underperform against weaker opponents. That makes it especially tough for Magnus to push to 2900 - but it would be less hard if he played a world championship match against Nepo than if he just sticks to elite round robins.
It's a bit sad that we're meant to use ELO as a means of measuring how good a player is somewhat objectively, when the very system that claims (or at least is used to claim) objectivity is so susceptible to manipulation that it incentivizes opponent selection which runs counter to actually revealing who the strongest player is. Players want to keep their rank, and so won't do things that jeopardize it, and so won't "defend their title" as new challengers approach, thus rendering the whole score system not completely worthless, but definitely critically buggy.
The issue is not that it is susceptible to manipulation, the issue is that it skews the behaviour in the direction, if not unexpected, then at least unwelcomed. As ratings things tend to do in other areas of life as well.
I fucking knew this was a thing. Top players are prepared for top players, they learned each other. When you bring in a random person that doesn’t play like them, they get thrown off
Wow Elo anxiety is a real thing but it does make sense. I don't know for sure but personally I think it's unreasonable to always win when there are always high level players. I do think there are some exceptions to this like Hikaru or Danya but that may shed some light on some other issues going on.
I agree that it is risky, but it is the parley they have to be willing to risk if they want to play in cash prize tournament. Otherwise, they need to stay home and play it safe. So I do admire the top players for taking chances.
@@cwjalexx You don't know what you're missing. I play Ben's videos when I'm ready for sleep, and his dulcet tones have me in deep slumber even before the game is out of the opening.
why dont they give even less weight to draws in rating calculation. wins /losses show more about the relative strengths of the players , do u really need draws to factor in at all? it would relieve the pressure of top players playing lower rated players.
It's not an analogy. It's information theory. Two seperate pools with Elo scores aren't comparable, because information cannot move between the two pools.
You make a good point about how top level chess becomes a closed system, and in a lot of ways that is probably not ideal, but it does function to give lower rated players space to grow and compete as the risk outweighs the reward for top level players to participate in weak tournaments. So they rarely or never do. There are pros and cons to that either way. Also how did you get to be the voice of reason during the Hans drama? Did you draw the short straw and not get to have any fun making wild accusation?
forgot that GMs have a way to force drawish lines, and if the opponent wants to win they have to accept to play a slightly worse position, thus lowering the effective Elo difference
i think if you take 10 1800 rated players and give them 2600 ratings and if they only play each other they will be always around 2600 rated assuming they stay at their current strenght
This is a bit wrong I believe, it's not necessarily about the self contained player pool, I am pretty sure this is true at all levels. The chess elo system just isn't perfect, I remember learning about it a bit ago. It's like between 100-200 points above you win way less than expected but then 300+ points above you win way more than expected (you basically can't lose)
I get the rating ELO but shouldn't the emphasis be on winning tournaments. In Golf & Tennis it's about winning Majors not neccessary being ranked #1, althoug they can go hand in hand
Do you suggest that draws should be neutral in rating? _As in a draw results in no gain/loss of rating for either player, regardless of the difference of their ratings at the start_
I had this idea too, but when i stopped to consider it further I realized that ELO at the top ranks would virtually never change with the vast majority of games ending in a draw. Furthermore there would be even more gatekeeping of lower elo players in the sense that it's nearly impossible to beat a higher rated player who isn't playing to win.
as it currently works elo is meant to represent how much you should win, if you are 500 points above an opponent you should win 999 games out of every 1000, if you don't then your rating was too high
In theory that whole reasoning shouldn't make sense because players lose less points if the opponent is lower rated and gain more if higher rated and than there is the glicko rd that exaggerates any result based in how many game played for a set amount of time .I think high rated players just dont want the mental headache of playing others who might be below thier level of play .
Ben, what you need is a finance charge on the fide ratings, like those scammy gift cards. "if this card is not used in X months, the balance will be reduced by y% per month"
this is an interesting thing. you think hans has some insight into GM playing through cheating even though he didn't cheat over the board? I think so. just seeing how gms respond to the computer moves has to be enlightening. it probably informs hum why those are good moves.
ranking system is just not balanced, there should be a sweet spot where players can win/lose max amount of points. let's say this is a difference of 100 points. once players are closer together OR further apart, the amount of points to gain/lose should drop. this would allow for higer ranked players to play against lower ones, without risking too much. And it also prevents low ranking players to sky rocket just because they beat some hot shot. it's an incentive to always play players just above you in rank, if you want to walk the ranking ladder.
That's how it is with music except the most popular "musicians" arent close to the best or most talented. The popular ones realize the unpopular are just as good if not better so they form a circle and cherry pick who can come in.
but the mystery for me is how some players like Magnus/Caruana/Hikaru beat 2650s-2700 so frequently it seems like there is a legitimate skill gap there.
Interesting. I’m rated around 900 and I do so well against lower rated but struggle against higher rated. I expected this to be the same at higher levels. So interesting to see that is not the case.
There is a bigger difference in skill in lower ratings than in higher ratings. A 1200 will def beat a 1000 most of the time, but a 2300 can totally beat a 2500, it will be a close match. I think the difference in higher ratings is that, on average, the higher rated player will win more than the lower rated, but on individual games it'd look more as a close match.
What the other guy didn't mention is that DRAWING at higher level is very likely. Playing just a little better than your opponent doesn't mean you will win. There are endgames where being 1 pawn, and sometimes even 2 pawns, is not enough to win vs perfect defense.
lmao, I was staring at this the entire video like, "Qa8 looks like it complicates things, maybe he should have maybe played Qb7 instead." Then Ben notices it in like the last 2 seconds of the video haha. Idk if it's winning, but it's definitely way less clear for black now
@@shooz4unme Magnus handled the situation poorly, no doubt about it, and while the testimony of the strongest chess player to ever live isn't proof, it certainly isn't meaningless. You're fine to criticize Magnus for the way he acted, but writing this off as "Magnus is upset he lost rating points" shows a serious lack of understanding for what Magnus is risking by making an accusation like this in the way that he did. He wouldn't risk his reputation and legacy over a few rating points.
I understand now, it is risky for Magnus to play against Hans, as Hans has a real strength of 2500. Wait, but he is rated 2700, so there is no real risk for Magnus. Interesting. But engines are much higher rated than Magnus! I am confused.
Do what does Ben think of Hans game today against Yoo (not you) in the US Championship?? As the foreigners world say, "was he chitting?" 🤔 I followed that game and I saw that guy make some moves and thought, geez, I could have made some better ones and he even had loads time than Hans did. I'm thinking, and this guy's almost 2600?? Not saying that I cold beat the guy, just at some critical points I saw better moves and then checked with the engine and my move was better. It was not the same as the engine move, but lost less centipawn than the move trust he made. He made it easy for Hans.
Your move may have been "better" by engine standards but Yoo may have seen why it was NOT the engine choice and discarded it, while the move he played he didn't see why it was bad so easily. Also at a certain point, when you're lost, it has a mental toll. StLCC has seriously ramped up anti-cheating measures and I highly doubt Yoo is cheating.
I never implied that Yoo was cheating. I jokingly implied that Hans have been. I emphasize"jokingly" as I don't think either was I do think that Yoo played some that were not so good that I would have played and then ran my move thru the engine and they were less negative than what Yoo played.
@@ساهرمحمدحسانعلي fun is when your opponent is too butthurt to accept a loss from a mate in 1 and will sit out the remainder of the clock crying about how you don't know anything.
Finegold is talking about professionals that make a living out of having amazing ELOs, so of course they have to care about their rating. For Rufus, Dufus and me it would be pointless to care about these things.
@@ساهرمحمدحسانعلي Yes, exactly 👍 As soon as something becomes ‘professional’ it is almost all about money and points and ego. You see it in almost every sport
wait non of Guess fragrances smell cheap. not guess man, seductive, seductive noir or seductive blue or night. they are just discounted. I'm sick of influencers calling these fragrances " cheap" . they are discounted and has to do with supply and demand and not quality at all. please be more thorough in your descriptions. I was and saw that Guess used some of the best perfumers in the world to produce t hese fragrances for years influencers have been calling cheap. Guess Blues creator created for Initio , Monte Blanc ,Valentino among others
This is why ELO should have a natural decay system where you slowly lose rating points over time. It would be even better if you got more rating points for playing more different people over time
Ratings inflation occurs in general because ELO ratings have a floor but no ceiling. So, in FIDE, once you attain GM status, your official rating can never drop below 2400 even if you actually play below 2400 consistently. This is finey to keep GMs from sandbagging their rating and entering class tnmnts and scooping up easy prize money. However, at the end of a GMs career, when he actually may no longer be playing 2400 chess, so now other players are picking up ELO points from beating him and getting credit for beating a 2400 player when maybe he's only really playing at a 2300 level or even 2200. And this goes right up the food chain. So a 2500 player has picked up some inflated ELO points from other players right up to the WCC bring rated over 2800. Do you really think that because all modern day players are rated higher than the Fischers, Capas, Botvinniks, Karpovs, Kasparovs, Laskers, etc that they are better players than them? I don't think so. Remember, way back in 1994 that Karpov turned in a ELO Performance rating of 2985 in the Linares tnmnt.. What would that be inflated to today?? 🤔
honestly it's a shame most ratings systems for chess don't incorporate drawing (or drawishness) as anything other than "half win half loss", and I think that's precisely the type of thing that leads to this scenario: in a game with ~60% chance of drawing between even players, 1 win and 4 draws is not the same as 3 wins and 2 losses
If FIDE ratings were a good measure of ability, then they would would be stable, regardless of who plays who. But it’s not a good measurement of ability
This is why I feel the top ten are over rated. They’re not necessarily the best. It’s just that they only keep playing each other so they all retain the top spots. That’s why I was disgusted by Caruana’s comment in the C squared podcast where he said Wei Yi was an example of someone who was rising but plateaued. He didn’t plateau but he just doesn’t get invitations to the top tournaments
Ok, let's say that the first 20 places in world ranking are a safe heaven, so the challenge is to reach that place... and I think that every player in that spot deserved it by overcoming all the difficulties and fallacies in the system that we are talking about. Every superGm has been for a period in the 2600-2700 jungle and succesfully went through, we must not forget that.
@@alessiosanti6969 Getting there is difficult but they should also have to stay there. If you look at other sports like tennis, if you reach the top 20 once, you cannot just stay in the top 20 by just playing other top 20 players. You have to win the same number of points to stay in the top 20. That's why the rating list is an accurate representation of the playing strength and performances of the players for the last 1 year. However, in chess that is not the case right now. Many members of the top 10 like Caruana and Aronian regularly lose when playing lower rated players but just avoid playing the lower rated players. (I took these examples randomly. But it's the same case with a lot of players).
This does not make sense. I understand that you can loose more points if the low rated player actually is stronger than than what is reflected by current ELO and ofc that is more likely with a lower rated progressing players. The other rambling is just that, rambling.
Game theory. Not chess theory, but game theory. Masters play masters.....and when they play lower ranked players, they face various moves they don't expect. It's a mix of strong game play and playing intuitively. works with nearly every 'game' in life.
How did the (super) GMs gain their high ELO-rating ? Because they got the chance of playing against higher rated players (and then win). But when they finally have their high elo rating they simply deny others the chance that they have got, because it is "too risky". Simply disgusting. Note : this sissy behaviour is not only for GMs, but only for 1800s refusing to play against 1500 in an amateur chess club.
Sounds like cowards to me, Thats like being so good at pool and a beginner comes up and challenges you and you say no because your just so much better and its a waist of time, This is the cowards way out.
That's why Magnus has never dared play me in a tournament. He's scared to lose his rating points. Understandable.
He failed to mention the prep disparity. The top 10-20 players have all done EXTENSIVE prep against one another and know hundreds of games of each of the players and their respective patterns and strengths and weaknesses. When a top 200 player goes against a top 10, they prep like mad and have tons of material to pull from to prep. But when Magnus (or another top 10) goes against a top 200 player, he doesnt have as much material to prep with, nor is it realistic for him to prep against this one-time opponent as extensively as he preps against caruana or nepo.
Preparation appears to account for about 100-150 points of rating. Meaning, when Magnus plays against an opponent without preparing extensively, he is playing at a 2750ish level instead of 2880 like when he plays someone he is heavily prepped against. In the same way, when a 2700 rated player goes against Magnus, they prep extensively (not to mention all of his games they have often times watched for entertainment), boosting their respective level of play against him, so they might even be playing above their rating at a 2720-2750 rating against Magnus.
This preparation mismatch is a result of people being human and not having infinite time to go 100% against every opponent. And it is this preparation mismatch that really makes playing lower rank players very risky, because the difference in rating can quickly vanish because of the preparation disparity.
EDIT: Adding this from @Kenton Hicks , as his reasoning about draws may supersede the issue of prep disparity. "Elite grandmasters aren't afraid of losing to lower rated players (like you imply, they'll lose probably 1% of the time or less); they're afraid of drawing lower rated opponents....My opinion is that I think if SuperGMs wanted to prep for and play lower-rated opponents, they would, and they would do as expected based on elo. It's not just that they can't because they don't have enough time, energy, or ability to. (In fact, they have prep teams of very strong players and more resources to do just that if they wanted.) It's usually that they lack incentive to prep for them or play them because it's simply not worth it. Even with great prep and better play than their lower-rated opponent, they still have a good chance of drawing and losing elo points, because perfect chess is an equal game."
I think this is a generally true observation, that the super GMs are better prepared for one another than lower rated players, but I think that this is only a secondary symptom of what Ben was talking about, and that the primary risk simply lies in the rating disparity. Super GMs choose to devote that much more time preparing for other super GMs rather than low rated GMs because there is a better risk-reward ratio. This probably exacerbates the risk, like you point out, but if those same lower rated GMs were higher rated, there would probably no longer be a systemic preparation disparity either.
They have a similar amount of material on the top 50-200, but less time to study them. Whereas everyone is always studying the top 20 players in the world, prepping against them or not
This is partially the reason why Fischer wound up hating the game. Chess has a clinical treatment among GMs. They want to memorize a bunch of crap instead of just playing the game and doing analysis in the moment.
There was exactly ZERO chance Ben would mention that. kind of a point; it simply requires him to be too sympathetic to the top players; that just ain't Ben's realm sadly.
now the big question is if these super gms just arther prep against other players knowing they have no chance against magnus or if they all extrensively prep for magnus to get a game off the champion yet magnus just too gud and smashes them all :D
The "prison chess" example was used for a reason. For a while, the highest rated player in the world was a prisoner, for precisely that reason. He even wrote to FIDE warning of the dangers of "closed pool" ratings.
who is this player you are talking about?
@@anshagrawal254 Claude Bloodgood. He was "only" the second highest rated USCF, but it was a tricky situation nevertheless - Wiki has an article on him.
@@anshagrawal254 I think he means Bobby Fischer
@@markrichardson2512 bruh when was bobby Fischer in prison?
@@anshagrawal254 He was arrested in 2004 for breaking immigration laws, bruh
I was lucky enough to play several extremely strong players back when there were tourneys with only 1 section. For example: Lombardy (on B#1 in 1968), John Grefe (B#1 1974), Larry Evans (B#3 1974), John Watson (B#2 1976). I never beat a player over 2400 (did beat several 2200 & 2300s), but these games were all memorable. Players today may have a chance to win much higher prizes in Class sections, but they're missing out on a great experience!
Wow, you were beating NMs before Ben was born
This focus on rating is quite detrimental to chess. Focus should be on winning tournaments and competitions, and that's how the person position in ranking should be judged
That's the reason why, when I play tournaments, I register for the highest section that I am allowed to, even if the average rating there is way above my own rating. I like to play higher rated players, because even if I only have a mediocre result, I might actually gain rating points. Plus the experience I get!
Yeah it's probably better for your own improvement to play stronger players. It's a bit like CounterStrike or DOTA 2 in that playing people your own or lower skill level lets you get away with forming bad habits because you don't get punished for it.
It makes sense. If you're much higher rated than someone you have so many points to lose and so little to gain. Plus psychologically the pressure is on, thinking "I should beat them." I think this happens regardless of your rating for many people, obviously not to such an extent, but similar elements are at play when you have a 1500 against a 1300 or something like that.
Can't wait to play in the Rufus Open
Sign me in
But Dufus will win…
Half the reason I try to get better at the things I'm good at is so that the challenges I'm struggling with now become easy. For example with cycling I often do shorter rides just because I used to find that length very tiring and I like to remind myself how far I've come. If I ever became top 10 in chess I'd love nothing more than smacking 2600s and then reminding myself that there was a time (now) when I thought 2600s were gods.
Sure, but what if the difference between "top 10" and "top 75" is much less than outsiders think? If you're in the top 10 you have a career, if you are at #75 nobody cares. Maybe chess should be incentivized differently somehow? Or maybe top 10 players could be required to "defend their rating" more often?
@@neillore7332 yeah it's unfair to the lower rated players that they get less opportunities to net some juicy elo off super GMs
Sure, but beating 2600+ would be no walk in the park either.. even for the top 10 in the world
@@TheToxicBishop Right, but to my mind, if you are top 10 in the world but you aren't defending your top 10ness, you aren't actually top 10 in the world. JMO
Jeffery Xiong and Sam Shankland are prime examples of barely 2700 in closed tournaments vs Sam Sevian playing in opens
someone should make a supercut of all the times ben took a sip of perrier
That makes a lot of sense because when I was playing for rating in Yahoo Games stuff to see how high I could get it (rating didn't mean much as it was relative to the rooms you played in, so it was for fun), I'd deliberately pick the people around or higher than me to minimize losses and maximize my chances of upping it. But because I'd play anyone later anyway, when I'd get a lower-rated player and lose just once due to something unexpected (like pocketing the 8-ball early in Pool), it would plummet, lol!
That being said, perhaps rating should be based on a player's "performance" and not who wins, loses or draws. Like, you know how GM norms are based on player performance of 2600? What if that performance number was the rating instead and it was like an average of the 20 most recent games or something? That way players could just play normally and play whomever and their rating would stay about where it is unless they improve or get rusty.
You could scale up what Ben is saying too. Say Magnus played a 100 game match against Stockfish, who's rated like 3600. Magnus could lose 99 games and get 1 draw, and he'd still rank up pretty considerably. I guess this is one of the flaws in the ELO rating system, that lower rated players are rewarded too heavily.
Exactly. Because the ELO rating is originally designed for 2 outcomes: you either win or lose, draw doesn't count. In chess, the draws affect rating points, and chess is theoretically a draw game, so that causes problems at high level.
Another thing is that 1 rating point among the top tier of chess is worth more than 1 rating point in lower tiers. Example the skill difference 50 points means among super GMs is bigger than between 2450 and 2500.
I wonder if anyone here today wishes Niemann said something like "I don't need to discuss the game, it speaks for itself" and that was followed by a buzzing noise when he stood up.
Ben is right. A few months ago, I did some statistical analysis and posted the results on my blog (e4stat). 2700+ super GMs underperform against weaker opponents. That makes it especially tough for Magnus to push to 2900 - but it would be less hard if he played a world championship match against Nepo than if he just sticks to elite round robins.
It's a bit sad that we're meant to use ELO as a means of measuring how good a player is somewhat objectively, when the very system that claims (or at least is used to claim) objectivity is so susceptible to manipulation that it incentivizes opponent selection which runs counter to actually revealing who the strongest player is. Players want to keep their rank, and so won't do things that jeopardize it, and so won't "defend their title" as new challengers approach, thus rendering the whole score system not completely worthless, but definitely critically buggy.
The issue is not that it is susceptible to manipulation, the issue is that it skews the behaviour in the direction, if not unexpected, then at least unwelcomed. As ratings things tend to do in other areas of life as well.
I fucking knew this was a thing. Top players are prepared for top players, they learned each other. When you bring in a random person that doesn’t play like them, they get thrown off
This was interesting and informative. Have watched a bunch of your videos now, enjoy a lot of it. Sub'd.
Wow Elo anxiety is a real thing but it does make sense. I don't know for sure but personally I think it's unreasonable to always win when there are always high level players. I do think there are some exceptions to this like Hikaru or Danya but that may shed some light on some other issues going on.
I agree that it is risky, but it is the parley they have to be willing to risk if they want to play in cash prize tournament. Otherwise, they need to stay home and play it safe. So I do admire the top players for taking chances.
Hey man I want to tell you I don’t even play chess and your videos are very entertaining, I watch them all.
That makes two if us
It take 10 minute max to learn the basic give it a try :)
I don't play chess and I'm deaf but I watch Ben's videos for the eye candy.
@@cwjalexx he's a cutie aye
@@cwjalexx You don't know what you're missing. I play Ben's videos when I'm ready for sleep, and his dulcet tones have me in deep slumber even before the game is out of the opening.
No more Ben Finegold videos for me. I have a low pain threshold, and the truth hurts.
why dont they give even less weight to draws in rating calculation. wins /losses show more about the relative strengths of the players , do u really need draws to factor in at all? it would relieve the pressure of top players playing lower rated players.
Ben with the thermodynamics analogy! Excellent.
"imagine prison chess"
I need a coach are you having lessons? I’d like to know ur pricing
Entropy in a Closed System
That Analogy is Next Level 😅👍🏽
Since when did Ben have a physics/chemistry degree
It's not an analogy. It's information theory. Two seperate pools with Elo scores aren't comparable, because information cannot move between the two pools.
So you’re saying I have a chance?
Not really
You make a good point about how top level chess becomes a closed system, and in a lot of ways that is probably not ideal, but it does function to give lower rated players space to grow and compete as the risk outweighs the reward for top level players to participate in weak tournaments. So they rarely or never do. There are pros and cons to that either way.
Also how did you get to be the voice of reason during the Hans drama? Did you draw the short straw and not get to have any fun making wild accusation?
That's why they don't like Hans cause he winning
forgot that GMs have a way to force drawish lines, and if the opponent wants to win they have to accept to play a slightly worse position, thus lowering the effective Elo difference
I know the rules of chess. Never play. But I respect the mental dual of the game. Its interesting
i think if you take 10 1800 rated players and give them 2600 ratings and if they only play each other they will be always around 2600 rated assuming they stay at their current strenght
Nothing to gain, everything to lose.
If Hans becomes an astronaut, will they call him Buzz Niemann?
I love the Finegold rants!
100 elo higher means you win 2 out of 3.
it should, but the whole point of the video is explaining why thats not reality.
@@Nateawa it means you will lose a lot more than you think
I was 949ish uscf rated in provisonionals and I had a mate in 3 against an IM. I didnt see it of course, but my opponent was sweating!
It is good making IMs and GMs sweat like hell. Especially when you're really low rated. 1900s have been known to beat them. lol
This is a bit wrong I believe, it's not necessarily about the self contained player pool, I am pretty sure this is true at all levels. The chess elo system just isn't perfect, I remember learning about it a bit ago. It's like between 100-200 points above you win way less than expected but then 300+ points above you win way more than expected (you basically can't lose)
I thought that the "lower rated plaers" was to be about the 600-elo titans of chess like myself.
The rating delta should account for the color you played. Would be an easy fix to the system. Surprising it is not done.
I get the rating ELO but shouldn't the emphasis be on winning tournaments. In Golf & Tennis it's about winning Majors not neccessary being ranked #1, althoug they can go hand in hand
Chess rating = clout = sponsors = more $
Do you suggest that draws should be neutral in rating? _As in a draw results in no gain/loss of rating for either player, regardless of the difference of their ratings at the start_
I had this idea too, but when i stopped to consider it further I realized that ELO at the top ranks would virtually never change with the vast majority of games ending in a draw. Furthermore there would be even more gatekeeping of lower elo players in the sense that it's nearly impossible to beat a higher rated player who isn't playing to win.
as it currently works elo is meant to represent how much you should win, if you are 500 points above an opponent you should win 999 games out of every 1000, if you don't then your rating was too high
magnus is afraid to play me
3:01 thank you for the clarification, I was wondering who "Magnus" is lol
So we need the money to go to more Open Swiss tournaments and less closed tournaments, I guess.
In theory that whole reasoning shouldn't make sense because players lose less points if the opponent is lower rated and gain more if higher rated and than there is the glicko rd that exaggerates any result based in how many game played for a set amount of time .I think high rated players just dont want the mental headache of playing others who might be below thier level of play .
Ben, what you need is a finance charge on the fide ratings, like those scammy gift cards. "if this card is not used in X months, the balance will be reduced by y% per month"
Overall rating deflation would be the result unless you somehow redistribute those evaporating points.
Ben, a closed system has entropy.
Yeah, elo is relative to the people you play. Be pretty interesting to compare elos with Ken Regan's rating due to it's standardized nature.
this is an interesting thing. you think hans has some insight into GM playing through cheating even though he didn't cheat over the board? I think so. just seeing how gms respond to the computer moves has to be enlightening. it probably informs hum why those are good moves.
5:09 It's called the Jobava Experience
ranking system is just not balanced, there should be a sweet spot where players can win/lose max amount of points. let's say this is a difference of 100 points. once players are closer together OR further apart, the amount of points to gain/lose should drop. this would allow for higer ranked players to play against lower ones, without risking too much. And it also prevents low ranking players to sky rocket just because they beat some hot shot. it's an incentive to always play players just above you in rank, if you want to walk the ranking ladder.
That's how it is with music except the most popular "musicians" arent close to the best or most talented. The popular ones realize the unpopular are just as good if not better so they form a circle and cherry pick who can come in.
It hurts my soul that he keeps 2400’s low rated players. Sir I can’t break out of 1100
Queen d7 lose to queen a8 check then take queen with pin ?
Does FIDE not have rank decay? :D
but the mystery for me is how some players like Magnus/Caruana/Hikaru beat 2650s-2700 so frequently it seems like there is a legitimate skill gap there.
*cough* *cough* Hikaru *cough*
Interesting. I’m rated around 900 and I do so well against lower rated but struggle against higher rated. I expected this to be the same at higher levels. So interesting to see that is not the case.
There is a bigger difference in skill in lower ratings than in higher ratings. A 1200 will def beat a 1000 most of the time, but a 2300 can totally beat a 2500, it will be a close match. I think the difference in higher ratings is that, on average, the higher rated player will win more than the lower rated, but on individual games it'd look more as a close match.
What the other guy didn't mention is that DRAWING at higher level is very likely. Playing just a little better than your opponent doesn't mean you will win. There are endgames where being 1 pawn, and sometimes even 2 pawns, is not enough to win vs perfect defense.
That makes a lot of sense.
Same in most Competitive Fps shooters ! you cant adapt and read low elo players. They dont know what they do. How could you ?
to shreds you say
I know why one highly rated player is avoiding a lower rated player. Cheating.
Is QA8 Check winning here?
lmao, I was staring at this the entire video like, "Qa8 looks like it complicates things, maybe he should have maybe played Qb7 instead." Then Ben notices it in like the last 2 seconds of the video haha. Idk if it's winning, but it's definitely way less clear for black now
So, rating is more important than playing chess.
7:11 Rufus and Doofus 😂
This probably explains why Magnus is so upset! He’s lost a lot of rating points. What kind of chess champion is this??
Magnus truly believes he was cheated. I don't think for a second he would tarnish his reputation the way he did unless he was convinced.
Yep
@@enyajungle true
@@enyajungle He presented NO EVIDENCE. If Magnus won and Hans “cheated,” would Magnus ask for a rematch? You’re taking this subjectively.
@@shooz4unme Magnus handled the situation poorly, no doubt about it, and while the testimony of the strongest chess player to ever live isn't proof, it certainly isn't meaningless. You're fine to criticize Magnus for the way he acted, but writing this off as "Magnus is upset he lost rating points" shows a serious lack of understanding for what Magnus is risking by making an accusation like this in the way that he did. He wouldn't risk his reputation and legacy over a few rating points.
I understand now, it is risky for Magnus to play against Hans, as Hans has a real strength of 2500. Wait, but he is rated 2700, so there is no real risk for Magnus. Interesting. But engines are much higher rated than Magnus! I am confused.
very interesting....thx!
That huuurtsss! Go Ben lmao! Let’s get some fairness for new players and players from poor countries. Not fun the way it is
I wrote this at the beginning of the video, I thought Ben was calling Super GMs cowards
Magnus currently has 3.5/4.
Do what does Ben think of Hans game today against Yoo (not you) in the US Championship??
As the foreigners world say, "was he chitting?" 🤔
I followed that game and I saw that guy make some moves and thought, geez, I could have made some better ones and he even had loads time than Hans did. I'm thinking, and this guy's almost 2600?? Not saying that I cold beat the guy, just at some critical points I saw better moves and then checked with the engine and my move was better. It was not the same as the engine move, but lost less centipawn than the move trust he made. He made it easy for Hans.
It was an opening Hans made an chessable course for
Yoo goofed
Your move may have been "better" by engine standards but Yoo may have seen why it was NOT the engine choice and discarded it, while the move he played he didn't see why it was bad so easily. Also at a certain point, when you're lost, it has a mental toll. StLCC has seriously ramped up anti-cheating measures and I highly doubt Yoo is cheating.
I never implied that Yoo was cheating.
I jokingly implied that Hans have been.
I emphasize"jokingly" as I don't think either was
I do think that Yoo played some that were not so good that I would have played and then ran my move thru the engine and they were less negative than what Yoo played.
What's up with the thirst at 3:20? Were you nervous?
Nooo, that´s just Ben´s trademark move to confuse the opponents :-)
Pro tip: don’t play prodigy kids that are literally underrated.
When is chess just going to be about having fun again? Points this, points that..
when was it about fun
@@ساهرمحمدحسانعلي fun is when your opponent is too butthurt to accept a loss from a mate in 1 and will sit out the remainder of the clock crying about how you don't know anything.
Finegold is talking about professionals that make a living out of having amazing ELOs, so of course they have to care about their rating. For Rufus, Dufus and me it would be pointless to care about these things.
@@ساهرمحمدحسانعلي Yes, exactly 👍 As soon as something becomes ‘professional’ it is almost all about money and points and ego. You see it in almost every sport
@@KvS1248 Chess is their livelihood so yea they care about their rating
ty
Fascinating stuff
wait non of Guess fragrances smell cheap. not guess man, seductive, seductive noir or seductive blue or night. they are just discounted. I'm sick of influencers calling these fragrances " cheap" . they are discounted and has to do with supply and demand and not quality at all. please be more thorough in your descriptions. I was and saw that Guess used some of the best perfumers in the world to produce t hese fragrances for years influencers have been calling cheap. Guess Blues creator created for Initio , Monte Blanc ,Valentino among others
I think that is what happened to Magnus
This is why ELO should have a natural decay system where you slowly lose rating points over time. It would be even better if you got more rating points for playing more different people over time
Very interesting sounds like drawing with black should be less costly
It's always frustrating when I'm playing someone much lower rated and they find some forced draw causing me a loss of rating points.
I disagree with this Assignment💯
Ratings inflation occurs in general because ELO ratings have a floor but no ceiling.
So, in FIDE, once you attain GM status, your official rating can never drop below 2400 even if you actually play below 2400 consistently.
This is finey to keep GMs from sandbagging their rating and entering class tnmnts and scooping up easy prize money.
However, at the end of a GMs career, when he actually may no longer be playing 2400 chess, so now other players are picking up ELO points from beating him and getting credit for beating a 2400 player when maybe he's only really playing at a 2300 level or even 2200.
And this goes right up the food chain. So a 2500 player has picked up some inflated ELO points from other players right up to the WCC bring rated over 2800.
Do you really think that because all modern day players are rated higher than the Fischers, Capas, Botvinniks, Karpovs, Kasparovs, Laskers, etc that they are better players than them? I don't think so.
Remember, way back in 1994 that Karpov turned in a ELO Performance rating of 2985 in the Linares tnmnt..
What would that be inflated to today?? 🤔
honestly it's a shame most ratings systems for chess don't incorporate drawing (or drawishness) as anything other than "half win half loss", and I think that's precisely the type of thing that leads to this scenario: in a game with ~60% chance of drawing between even players, 1 win and 4 draws is not the same as 3 wins and 2 losses
the 60% figure being an exageration to show my point, I don't think chess has a 60% draw rate (iirc it's more like 1/3)
Another reason not to play weaker players is not to get into bad habits with black.
If FIDE ratings were a good measure of ability, then they would would be stable, regardless of who plays who. But it’s not a good measurement of ability
Someone drew magnus with black??? They cheated. For sure magnus should pull out...
I disagree
Pure widsom : )
Please don't eat or drink into the microphone.
😂
This is why I feel the top ten are over rated. They’re not necessarily the best. It’s just that they only keep playing each other so they all retain the top spots.
That’s why I was disgusted by Caruana’s comment in the C squared podcast where he said Wei Yi was an example of someone who was rising but plateaued. He didn’t plateau but he just doesn’t get invitations to the top tournaments
Ok, let's say that the first 20 places in world ranking are a safe heaven, so the challenge is to reach that place... and I think that every player in that spot deserved it by overcoming all the difficulties and fallacies in the system that we are talking about. Every superGm has been for a period in the 2600-2700 jungle and succesfully went through, we must not forget that.
@@alessiosanti6969 Getting there is difficult but they should also have to stay there.
If you look at other sports like tennis, if you reach the top 20 once, you cannot just stay in the top 20 by just playing other top 20 players. You have to win the same number of points to stay in the top 20.
That's why the rating list is an accurate representation of the playing strength and performances of the players for the last 1 year.
However, in chess that is not the case right now. Many members of the top 10 like Caruana and Aronian regularly lose when playing lower rated players but just avoid playing the lower rated players. (I took these examples randomly. But it's the same case with a lot of players).
ObViOuSlY all these GMs and IMs cheated against Magnus... --__--
Truth hurts
This does not make sense. I understand that you can loose more points if the low rated player actually is stronger than than what is reflected by current ELO and ofc that is more likely with a lower rated progressing players. The other rambling is just that, rambling.
Game theory. Not chess theory, but game theory. Masters play masters.....and when they play lower ranked players, they face various moves they don't expect. It's a mix of strong game play and playing intuitively.
works with nearly every 'game' in life.
How did the (super) GMs gain their high ELO-rating ? Because they got the chance of playing against higher rated players (and then win).
But when they finally have their high elo rating they simply deny others the chance that they have got, because it is "too risky".
Simply disgusting.
Note : this sissy behaviour is not only for GMs, but only for 1800s refusing to play against 1500 in an amateur chess club.
Sounds like cowards to me, Thats like being so good at pool and a beginner comes up and challenges you and you say no because your just so much better and its a waist of time, This is the cowards way out.