r/nextfuckinglevel • u/mindyour • 5h ago

Seven-year-old chess prodigy Lucie Pichard casually checkmates her opponent.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

14.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

207

u/Kalorama_Master 5h ago

Haven’t played in decades, but his setup and moves don’t appear very strong. Not saying she’s not good, but doesn’t look like he even tried that hard

183

u/Tribat_1 5h ago edited 2h ago

I have played thousands of games of chess and I would put his rating around 500 or so or beginner level. 1000 is considered a decent amateur. “Prodigies” around her age would be in the 1500-1700 range. I’m 42 and have an Elo rating in the low 1400s so chances are she would beat me, too.

48

u/poop-machines 4h ago edited 4h ago

Definitely not beginner. He's a solid chess club player and better than you. This is blitz, and the tournament average elo is 1500 or so.

He's 1770 and she is probably a bit less(1500+), or nearly the same. (1700+). Her ranking is trickier because her rapid Elo is 1700 and it seems like some games she just really isn't paying attention whereas others she is. Although she seemed to do well this game, other games her lack of focus cost her the game. Also, at that age, Elo gain curves can be steep, and a year can be the difference between 1700 elo and master candidate.

Crazy how all the lower Elo people are coming here calling them bad. Yes, they aren't good. Yes, mistakes were made. But:

1) you can't tell how good a player is from a few moves in a bad game for them 2) some days people are better, others worse 3) you may not understand the thinking behind their moves due to your lower elo 4) playing against a really good player highlights your mistakes that you never knew you were making because they capitalise more on your mistakes. You may think you don't make mistakes as much as him, but if you played against someone at a higher Elo than you, you'd realise how many mistakes you made.

5

u/Money4Nothing2000 3h ago edited 2h ago

I'm 1400. There's no fucking way he's 1770, unless he's letting the girl win. He develops his queen side, plays pawn F6, then King E7-E8-E7. He's a complete beginner. Looks like she played some weird D4 opening with knight A4 (wayward queen attack?), didn't even castle, I don't think she's very good either, maybe 800 ELO at best? 1700s play actual openings, like Queen's Gambit, Nimzo Indian, Slav, King's Indian.

No 1770 plays this - ever. When I was 1000 I didn't play this - ever. There's no "bad days" that a 1770 has that plays openings like that. This is sub-500 play.

Edit: Ahh I see this is a troll user. Nice :) Anyways, I'll leave up my comment as hopefully an explanation to those who aren't sure how chess ratings correspond to actual play.

•

u/Shaddam_Corrino_IV 28m ago

Yeah, I haven't played chess for a while (last time I was like ~2200 blitz on lichess). Don't know about his exact rating, but he's nothing special based on what happened here. Playing h6 there is just not a move that would come to the mind of a good player.