How far down the rankings do you have to go for the best player to go 10-0?
Edit: Or best player basically having no chance of losing?
I don’t feel like I’m asking the question correctly but I’m high so who knows.
For calculation purposes, the rating difference is capped at 400 points. So compared to Carlsen that would be 2462. I don’t know a list that goes that far down. However, one of the requirements to become a GM is a 2500 rating. At the moment there are some 1700 GMs. There are people rated over 2500 who aren’t GMs and there are GMs under 2500 (it’s a lifetime title, you only need to meet the requirements once). I’d say that 2000 is a rough low-end estimate of people fewer than 400 points below Carlsen.
1 Like
This is the theoretical relationship between rating difference and score percentage in FIDE ELO ratings:
However it’s more complicated than that, for example as darksideofthewall touched on, FIDE caps rating differences for calculation at 400 points. If you want to get into the weeds on this, including a comparison to actual FIDE results:
You can see from this that while I’m not bad at chess (like 1750-1800 rated on chess com which is like 95th percentile) a guy like Carlsen does not exist in the same universe as me. In fact, people rated around 2250 will beat me close to 100% of the time, and in turn Carlsen will beat THOSE people close to 100% of the time. This is in a game which is almost certainly a theoretical draw.
Bobby Fischer beat Taimanov 6-0 and Larsen 6-0 in 1971 in the Candidates tournament that featured these longer matches in the quarterfinals and onward. They were both top GMs and that level of play in a short match was unprecedented and is as yet unmatched. This was the beat down to end all beat downs in chess history.
There are more examples of GMs having perfect or near perfect runs in tournaments where you only play your opponents once or twice. For example, in 2014 Caruana won a tournament with 8.5/10 (7-0-3). Carlsen got second at 5.5/10. Caruana was rated 70 or so points behind Carlsen at the time, but his performance in that tournament was 300 points higher than Carlsen’s.
If ever there was a chance for a 2nd poker boom, it would be the poker version of Queen’s Gambit.
They just need to make an authentic piece about the highs and lows and not just have every hand shown be quad aces vs quad kings and BS like that.
I hate it when memes have awful grammar, wording, and/or spelling.
1 Like
What do you think is so compelling about Queen’s Gambit? How could this be translated into a poker movie? Cribbing my comments on Rounders from a review for a different movie:
Most people miss that Rounders wasn’t successful because it was a good poker movie. It was successful because it was a good HEIST movie. The characters used poker as their tool to fleece their victims.
Most other poker movies suck because they’re trying instead to be sports movies, and no sports movie about poker has ever been good. Ever.
If there was a chance for a second poker boom. It would be legalizing online poker yesterday, then pokerstars running ads “you’re stuck at home, what the else fuck have you got to do?”
2 Likes
Wasn’t poker boom a combo of Rounders and a dude named Moneymaker winning the WSOP? Imagine a dude named Joe Football winning SB MVP.
1 Like
It was a compelling look into the life of an elite chess player w/realistic chess. I’m advocating for the same thing in poker. Let the ups and downs and side diversions/distractions be the story and don’t focus on ridiculous poker hands.
Like you said, most poker content tries to be a sports movie, but let it be a drama instead. There are so many real life poker pros with fascinating swongs and life details that would make for a great story. Ivey for example, playing underaged, taking on a casino, hustling golf, marijuana side business, etc.
1 Like
Johnny Football almost won it. Only needed about 9 more regular season wins and 4 playoff wins to pull it off. So close.
2 Likes
Would an award-winning screenplay called “Vegas Knights” interest you?
14 Likes
Is it about hockey?
It was ahead of it’s time, I’ll say that much. The screenplay can be yours for $55,000.
1 Like
You can’t drop that easter egg and not link to the OG thread
Edit: or screenshot a few choice quotes so we’re not giving 22 traffic
That’s a shame. Hopefully NotBruce’s detective skills may reveal archived treasures.
2 Likes
Rounders had nothing to do with a poker boom. It came out in 1998.
I think Gambit is successful because it’s a catch-all type show that is very well made. It’s a bit of a history piece, a bit sports movie, a bit political, a bit coming-of-age story.