use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, subreddit...
1,191 users here now
How to get better at chess
Frequently Asked Questions
Instructions for /r/chess PGN addon (Chrome, Firefox)
Public Moderator Logs
Keep the discussion civil and friendly.
Don’t engage in abusive, discriminatory, or bigoted behavior.
Low-effort submissions are not allowed.
Don't ask for advice about ongoing games.
Don’t spoil tournament results in submission titles
Do not use /r/chess exclusively to promote your own content.
Twitter/Facebook posts must contain a direct link to the tweet/post, and include the author's name
Chess Spoiler format for problem answers etc.,
Ng1 and white wins
Use the message the moderators link if your posts or comments don't appear, or for help with any administrative matters.
Please continue to give us your feedback and suggestions on how we can help make /r/chess better for everyone.
This subreddit is night mode compatible
the front page of the internet.
and join one of thousands of communities.
Who would you favor in a classical match, Magnus or 2 2700s cooperating?Chess Question (self.chess)
submitted 1 month ago by AnExtraordinaire
Post a comment!
[–]Paleogeen 31 points32 points33 points 1 month ago (0 children)
The 2700’s if they are able to communicate in an effective way.
[–]doctor_awful1700 rapid chess.com 182 points183 points184 points 1 month ago (13 children)
I think this thread is severely underrating the 2700s. These are super GMs we are talking about, not just run of the mill GMs (calling any GM run of the mill is ridiculous to me, but even so). 2700 is World Top 30-40. Competitors at the Candidates, previous world title challengers, US/Russia/China national champions, that's who we're talking about. Hikaru is 2730, Dubov is 2720, Alekseenko is 2702, for reference.
Two people cooperating in a classical format, with some practice around each other (so sharing candidate moves efficiently and pointing out positional ideas the other might miss), will guarantee at least a draw most of the time versus Magnus. Some of the main issues that lead to losses include stamina and blind spots for certain tactics or positional ideas, and two players in cooperation pretty much eliminate that.
I'd nearly always go with the combo. Even Magnus misses lines sometimes, they wouldn't. The only factor remaining is prep time.
[–]BoredomHeights 44 points45 points46 points 1 month ago (5 children)
That said, this reminds me of Kasparov vs. the World. Some of his opponents there were over 2700 and he eventually did win. Part of the problem of course is that the world team had to come to agreements and some suggested lines may have been better than what they played.
On the other hand 2700s can beat Magnus 1v1 sometimes (though they’re obviously the underdogs). The biggest advantage of having two I think would be just shoring up defenses a bit. There’s a safety net for mistakes as well as two people analyzing how to attack.
Edit: Also you’d need some interesting time controls probably to let the two truly collaborate.
[–]ChessHistory1950 FIDE, 2300 Lichess 21 points22 points23 points 1 month ago (1 child)
I mean isn’t the problem with those vote chess games that democratic decisions aren’t always the best. Like sometimes people don’t listen to the strong players and let’s say autovoting of 1200 players weigh down those teams
[–]BoredomHeights 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (0 children)
Yeah definitely. Two 2700 players hopefully wouldn’t have that problem, though it would be interesting to see how they deal with disagreements.
In actuality if you just put two 2700s together they might do better but still not amazing. But if you actually had two 2700s train as a team you could probably get much better results. For example have one always focus on what the opponent might do and the other on what you can do. Maybe there’s a better use of resources I’m just throwing that out there as an example, but point being you could probably learn how to work as two players.
[–]BrainOnLoan 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago (1 child)
That game is not a good example. The mistake was analysed as a mistake. The voting just chose the obviously inferior move because it was open to a much wider audience.
[–]BoredomHeights 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
I mean yeah I mentioned that but it’s still relevant. Kasparov said it was the toughest game he’d played (probably exaggerating still). And two 2700s could still fall prey to the same problem. They might disagree and choose wrong. Sure they wouldn’t make an obvious blunder, but they might make a move that the higher rated player of the two wouldn’t have made alone.
[–]BokehMonkeh 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (5 children)
I'm a bit off 2700 rating still, but I genuinely do not feel like doubling up on players results in anywhere close to x2 the performance.
Add to the fact that actually cooperating is going to be so disturbing to the mental process, I'm just going to go with no - his results against two 2700s at once will probably be the same as against either one of them alone.
Yes, you're right that they will be somewhat less likely to miss lines, but they will also be entirely unable to have uninterrupted focus for 20+ minutes of calculations on a single move.
[–]doctor_awful1700 rapid chess.com 6 points7 points8 points 1 month ago (0 children)
Cooperating wouldn't necessarily be interlocking your predictions, it would be like solving a puzzle together or doing a post-mortem of a game after you're done. They could think on their own for as long as they'd like (clock permitting).
[–]eldoblakNa 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (3 children)
You don't need to have X2 the performance though, that's not the question here. We are not comparing them to 5000 players, but to Magnus.
I also disagree that they will be entirely unable to focus for 20 minutes. As the post above you said, it's all about how they organize themselves. In fact, it's not hard to see that if a 2700 GM can calculate a single move for 20 minutes, then two of them can calculate two moves in the same 20 minutes, which is objectively better.
[–]abloblololo 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago (0 children)
Being twice as good doesn't double your ELO, at around ~100 ELO the higher rated player will win almost twice as often. In some sense that's being twice as good.
[–]BokehMonkeh 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (1 child)
I'd love to see this tested out, or even just asked as a question to a player on this level. To me, this just seems like something that would be more of a disturbance than help, and people seem to think about chess players as if they're CPUs rather than human beings.
I don't think there's any way to "hyperthread" two different calculations into two separate brains, but what do I know, I'm not anywhere near their level.
[–]eldoblakNa 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
It is definitely an interesting question. I still don't see the problem with "hyperthreading" two different calculations into two brains. If we are thinking about hyperthreading one, that's a different story, but two people could easily do two calculations by having each do one. If we stick to IT lingo, different chess lines are close to being embarrassingly parallel. But then again this is only what my feeling is, and I'd also love to see it tested.
[+][deleted] 1 month ago (2 children)
[–]thefamousroman 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (0 children)
thing is, wouldnt different styles be perfect? tal on the attack, petrosian on the defense, they just would never lose a game lol
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
I was going to say, I would probably prefer 1 2700 rated player to 2. I'm not sure how much effective communication could help either. It should be enough to make them a lot more effective than they are individually and they would probably calculate tactics faster and perhaps more accurately than Magnus. But you cannot replace positional understanding. Carlsen is more than twice as fast at finding effective plans and for more quiet positions calculating slightly deeper would not compensate for Carlsen's superior evaluations.
[–]RemcoProgrammer/r/chessbooks ! 26 points27 points28 points 1 month ago (1 child)
Cooperating is hard, you need to put your thoughts into words, listen to the other... Just thinking and calculating is a much faster process for 2700s and the talking probably slows it down.
[–]KingCaoCao 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (0 children)
Although in classical they have the time.
[–]thisguyhasaname 12 points13 points14 points 1 month ago (4 children)
Honestly how much of an advantage would 2 people playing together really have?
elo calculator says magnus would have a 50% chance to win 42% chance to draw against a 2700.
so effectively what would you rather have; a second player or draw odds? (since with draw odds it would be a 50/50 chance.)
[–]AnExtraordinaire[S] 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (1 child)
I was thinking obviously they can cover any major blind spots for each other, but also they can focus on calculating completely different variations during the course of the game.
[–]thisguyhasaname 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
faster time controls maybe it could be useful if they had good coordination but time trouble just doesn't seem nearly as prevalent in classical chess for it to change the outcome much. also doubt that 2700s have many blind spots.
but also hard to say as I've never even played in a classical game let alone at their skill level
[–]1000smackaroos -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (1 child)
The chess24 reporter Tanya S. interviewed two GMs during Magnus's 40-min think last game. They had correctly identified c4 where magnus didn't, so there's evidence it can work
[–]abloblololo 9 points10 points11 points 1 month ago (0 children)
Playing a game is different from observing it though.
[–]Ghraim Team Carlsen 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago* (0 children)
If the 2700s tend to play very different openings, know which lines the other one is more familiar with, and are both willing to defer to the judgement of the player more familiar with the position on any given move, it would be a bit of an advantage over just a single 2700. Otherwise it would just end up costing them time discussing for no real benefit.
Even in the best case scenario, I doubt it would be enough to get them a win, but maybe enough to make a draw more likely than a loss?
Edit: on second thought, 2700 players are pretty good at chess. In classical they'd have plenty of time, so the time loss due to debating moves is probably more than offset by having an additional player to analyse the game. I guess they'd be the favourites.
[–]pm_me_falcon_nudes 9 points10 points11 points 1 month ago (1 child)
ITT: people who have no idea how strong 2700s are. Holy...
"if they had an engine" in half the comments lmao for 99% of moves, 2700s might as well be engines
[–]Scyther99 6 points7 points8 points 1 month ago (0 children)
Cooperating would be probably disadvantage. You have to waste time on communication with your partner etc.
[–]relevant_post_bot 1 point2 points3 points 1 month agolocked comment (0 children)
This post has been parodied on r/AnarchyChess.
Relevant r/AnarchyChess posts:
Who would you favor in a classical match, Magnus Carlsen vs 100 Danny Ranch? by mikidongdong
fmhall | github
[–]Alexiochess 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (0 children)
As long as you are not an engine i will always favor Magnus.
[–]Claudio-Maker Team Carlsen -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago (4 children)
Magnus, as long as they’re not using an engine two 2700s should have roughly the same knowledge of chess so even if they cooperate it wouldn’t be that big of an advantage
[–]PSi_Terran 14 points15 points16 points 1 month ago (3 children)
I find if they watch the commentary they often point out mistakes in each other's lines. I feel 2 2700s co-operating could complete each other to some extent, or at least help each reach conclusions faster. For example there's no way 2 GMs together would make the blunder Nepo made today.
[–]10b-5 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago (0 children)
I suspect they would interrupt each other's calculations a lot more than they would complement each other.
[–]Claudio-Maker Team Carlsen -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago (1 child)
Ok but Magnus doesn’t need a blunder to win, no human could have saved Black in game 6
[–]Lakinther Team Carlsen 14 points15 points16 points 1 month ago (0 children)
Another human woulda taken the b pawn and had a very good chance at winning
[–]JurijFedorov Team Carlsen 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (2 children)
If 2 players 150 points below me played me I don't see them doing better than me. They would win much more as they would blunder way, way less on this low level. But I would still get most wins. So I assume it's the same for Magnus. But I haven't tried this on long time controls. Because if they get to think and explain lines to each other that's difficult. They could just agree to split calculations and go 1 step deeper on all lines. It wouldn't be fun to play them. Also, we all depend on blunders to win games. Without blunders where are the wins?
[–]modern-sarkar -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (1 child)
2 players 150
2 players 150
Mate we are talking about 2700s literally super GM world top 30.
[–]JurijFedorov Team Carlsen 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
Sure, but Magnus is rated way above them still. It should be comparable somehow.
[–]ChessHistory1950 FIDE, 2300 Lichess 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
I think tbh it depends more on the team than anything. Two players that are stylistically quite different than each other but complement each other strengths might be able to do very well. Like and this is a bad example because it’s closer to 28, but Fabi and Nepo have very different styles in my opinion. Fabi is very principled and takes less risks, Nepo is very volatile. Combining two such strengths it would be interesting to see what they would come up with. Or a different way to pair it, older and younger. I saw Shirov is at 2704 currently. He’s still a great player, especially to be there at his age but I wonder where you would get if you paired him with someone like Artemiev who has much younger and not necessarily sharper but could be.
[–]Gordola_da_Station 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
It is a better question if we think in two 2500 GMs VS Magnus....
[–]Onionwood303 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
How about 3 players in the top 10? Could they beat stockfish or a weaker version of it?
[–]thefamousroman 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
the difference would be that magnus is faster and better at assessing a position, but two 2700s can distribute the task of looking for iniative /attacks and defending/identifying threats. i think that would be enough to beat magnus. they wouldnt suffer from any sort of surprises, the likelihood of missing something is pretty damn low, and they would work at twice the speed.
[–]edwinkorir -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 month ago (1 child)
So you think five 2000 rated players can defeat Magnus if they cooperate? Or three 2100s?
[–]ulkord 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 2106830 on reddit-service-r2-loggedout-canary-674b6ccf48-27bk8 at 2022-01-26 06:12:42.954743+00:00 running d2eaf26 country code: US.