Durrr in process of losing 60k+ in a chess bet.. good month for raptor

[rory]

i do not think you are a favorite over gary kasparov down a rook unless you are really strong.

[rory]

as an example of an amateur getting gang raped by a GM down a rook:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1242893

[Voltaire]

Pretty.

Thanks guys. I just "wasted" an hour with this thread. I only wish I could get an IM to play me a rook down for some serious cash. Durr is, as Curtain says, about a 950 USCF player. Only he didn't know that!

My estimate of how good a player has to be to have a +EV against an IM a rook up is around 1300. Against a GM maybe 1500.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty.

Thanks guys. I just "wasted" an hour with this thread. I only wish I could get an IM to play me a rook down for some serious cash. Durr is, as Curtain says, about a 950 USCF player. Only he didn't know that!

My estimate of how good a player has to be to have a +EV against an IM a rook up is around 1300. Against a GM maybe 1500.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between a normal IM and a GM in this bet is almost zero when facing low rated players. This should be extremely obvious and if you don't realize this you shouldn't be so cocky about how easily you'd win.

[Your Mom]

www.chessmail.com is ok.

[curtains]

btw just a note, I am positive that a decent % of the people that say that they would win the bet easily and then mock durrr for losing, would not actually be a favorite in the bet. Some of you are, but I'd be almost certain that most of you aren't. Almost every chessplayer whom has never played in a tournament drastically overrates their ability. If you have never played in a tournament and think that you are about 1600, you are probably about 1200-1300. Basically just subtract 300-400 points from how good you are, and that's how good you actually are.

I know this through tremendous exposure to players who have never played rated games, yet seem to think they know how good they are.

Sorry to be mean, I just find it silly how so many people are talking about how easily they would win the bet, without once giving their actual rating or any credentials of any sort. I'm mainly saying this to defend durrrr.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
btw just a note, I am positive that a decent % of the people that say that they would win the bet easily and then mock durrr for losing, would not actually be a favorite in the bet. Some of you are, but I'd be almost certain that most of you aren't. Almost every chessplayer whom has never played in a tournament drastically overrates their ability. If you have never played in a tournament and think that you are about 1600, you are probably about 1200-1300. Basically just subtract 300-400 points from how good you are, and that's how good you actually are.

I know this through tremendous exposure to players who have never played rated games, yet seem to think they know how good they are.

Sorry to be mean, I just find it silly how so many people are talking about how easily they would win the bet, without once giving their actual rating or any credentials of any sort. I'm mainly saying this to defend durrrr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Curtains, you know nothing about chess. I would crush you if we made this bet. I play in the park by my house all the time and basically never lose.

[Bronstein]

[ QUOTE ]
btw just a note, I am positive that a decent % of the people that say that they would win the bet easily and then mock durrr for losing, would not actually be a favorite in the bet.
...
Sorry to be mean, I just find it silly how so many people are talking about how easily they would win the bet, without once giving their actual rating or any credentials of any sort. I'm mainly saying this to defend durrrr.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have playing strength 2100-2200 fide and I'm fully confident I can give knight-odds vs anyone who hasn't played in tourneys before. Someone who beats all his friends all the time, just can't compete with someone who plays tournaments. I've seen it a thousand times: they think they're great, they know you're good, so they wanna challenge you. After 10 moves you start feeling ashamed yourself because he played so poor that it will be too obvious if you don't mate him in the next 10 moves. (Btw mostly they don't even know the exact rules, when isn't castling allowed and en passant for example.)

Take knight-odds, that's worth 3 pawns. I easily draw a pawn down, so winning 2 pawns is enough for not losing. How can't he lose 2 pawns? He might not drop pieces, but just 2 pawns, that's easy. Mostly he'll give a few pieces or get mated of course.

Rook-odds are very different cause you're unlikely to get 4 pawns, so he has to lose a piece and then some just to equalize.

Winning blindfold vs someone who never played tournaments is just as easy btw. It's even safer as you don't have to rely on his mistakes. Just play your A-game and he won't ever get an advantage.

[Punker]

If durr wants more action, I suspect I can find someone to back me to play against him in the same bet amount ($50K) and terms (rook down, G/60, best of 3 match) against him when I get to Vegas for the main event. My rating is about 2150.

[Voltaire]

Obviously with such a rating, you are a big favorite. Such a match would be the equivalent of rope-a-dope. But Curtains won't take you up on it, and you know it.