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."

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.

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!

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

Jeffery Xiong and Sam Shankland are prime examples of barely 2700 in closed tournaments vs Sam Sevian playing in opens

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.

This was interesting and informative. Have watched a bunch of your videos now, enjoy a lot of it. Sub'd.

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.

Ben with the thermodynamics analogy! Excellent.

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.

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.

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.

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.

someone should make a supercut of all the times ben took a sip of perrier

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.

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?

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.

Hey man I want to tell you I don’t even play chess and your videos are very entertaining, I watch them all.

I need a coach are you having lessons? I’d like to know ur pricing

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.

The rating delta should account for the color you played. Would be an easy fix to the system. Surprising it is not done.

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.

I love the Finegold rants!

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_

100 elo higher means you win 2 out of 3.

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

3:01 thank you for the clarification, I was wondering who "Magnus" is lol

Entropy in a Closed System That Analogy is Next Level 😅👍🏽

No more Ben Finegold videos for me. I have a low pain threshold, and the truth hurts.

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

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.

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)

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.

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

I know the rules of chess. Never play. But I respect the mental dual of the game. Its interesting

Nothing to gain, everything to lose.

I thought that the "lower rated plaers" was to be about the 600-elo titans of chess like myself.

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!

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

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 .

That makes a lot of sense.

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.

So we need the money to go to more Open Swiss tournaments and less closed tournaments, I guess.

"imagine prison chess"

Does FIDE not have rank decay? :D

very interesting....thx!

5:09 It's called the Jobava Experience

Fascinating stuff

It hurts my soul that he keeps 2400’s low rated players. Sir I can’t break out of 1100

magnus is afraid to play me

Same in most Competitive Fps shooters ! you cant adapt and read low elo players. They dont know what they do. How could you ?

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.

Ben, a closed system has entropy.

So you’re saying I have a chance?

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.

7:11 Rufus and Doofus 😂

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.

to shreds you say

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"

ty

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.

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.

Is QA8 Check winning here?

That's why they don't like Hans cause he winning

If Hans becomes an astronaut, will they call him Buzz Niemann?

Magnus currently has 3.5/4.

Magnus threw the game against the Norwegian dude go watch it defo shares his points with people to give himself a goal when board of the board

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 know why one highly rated player is avoiding a lower rated player. Cheating.

Prize fighting has the same issue. No one wants to risk their top 15 spot in a UFC division against some no rank no name young fighter.

I think that is what happened to Magnus

When is chess just going to be about having fun again? Points this, points that..

*cough* *cough* Hikaru *cough*

Pro tip: don’t play prodigy kids that are literally underrated.

Then don't pay for a rating play unrated simple!

This probably explains why Magnus is so upset! He’s lost a lot of rating points. What kind of chess champion is this??

Very interesting sounds like drawing with black should be less costly

I disagree with this Assignment💯

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

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?? 🤔

Pure widsom : )

I disagree

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

Someone drew magnus with black??? They cheated. For sure magnus should pull out...

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

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

Truth hurts

Another reason not to play weaker players is not to get into bad habits with black.

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.

What's up with the thirst at 3:20? Were you nervous?

Please don't eat or drink into the microphone.

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.

DADDY 1st

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

ObViOuSlY all these GMs and IMs cheated against Magnus... --__--

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.