One reason I think it's interesting to think about is it's making us (or me) characterize different levels of improbability not normally dealt with day to day.
Is it strictly impossible for the 1300 to win? No. But as long as their play is characteristic of their ratings it's also, I'd use the word unimaginable, that the 1300 would win.
Maybe I should also talk about our terms like "playing like a 2700" or "playing like a 1300." I don't think "playing like a 2700" automatically means never making mistakes or something. I just take it to mean, you take the brain of a 2700 player, they play their game, they will get x results depending on who they play. So I think you could "play like a 2700" even if doing so results in you dropping a piece in one game... as long as for every one of those games, there are thousands where they don't play that mistake. Even the best of filtering systems can result in weirdness in rare cases.
Like if you think of a random number generator of 1 to 5000, a person bets on the rng picking "2500," it wouldn't make sense to say that if, 2500 actually came up, the rng would be defective. No, the rng was totally legit, it just resulted in a number you didn't expect. And sure perhaps from a rational observer's perspective it wouldn't have made sense to think the person was actually going to be right. But the bettor still won the bet fair and square.
If it's just those random unexplainable errors, then it seems there would be the same chance that a 1300 would beat a 2500, 2600, 2700, etc. because it's not due to any quality of knowledge or skill the individual has, but on these errors that seem to happen on their own.
When I, as a mere 1700, have dropped a piece against a 1300, I have usually come back to win.
As a 1300 I won a queen for a knight against an expert and lost. It was a 20 minute game but still...
i think if the new player join in chess.com but its rating is higer than 2700 in outside it can be...
Elubas: In regards to the monkey, you are correct. To put this in chess terms, if an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, some of them will beat him. Well, actually that's an incorrect statement - to be accurate, an infinite number of monkeys will beat him. Both the number of games played and the number of games won by the monkeys are "countable infinities," you see...
The point to understand is this: when you play chess, all the moves are right there in front of you. If you happen to pick the right ones (even if you know nothing about chess strategy and just make random moves), you too can play like a grandmaster. Given that, the odds of the stronger player winning is never 100%.
Elubas: In regards to the monkey, you are correct. To put this in chess terms, if an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, some of them will beat him. Well, actually that's an incorrect statement - to be accurate, an infinite number of monkeys will beat him. Both the number of games played and the number of games won by the monkeys are "countable infinities," you see...
The point to understand is this: when you play chess, all the moves are right there in front of you. If you happen to pick the right ones (even if you know nothing about chess strategy and just make random moves), you too can play like a grandmaster. Given that, the odds of the stronger player winning is never 100%.
In a 50 move game A lot of 1300`s plays maybe 45 moves as a GM now and then, and maybe 4 inaccuracies and one bad move. In such games they will loose.
A Gm usually plays 50 or 49, og maybe 48 moves as a GM.
In his best games the 1300 have more Gm-like moves.
This is of course based on empty guesswork, and might not be true at all, but I can see from chess.com computeranalyze that in my best game when I was close to 1300 fide (which I have never been, my first rating was 1422), that ther were only two inaccuracies, and those two was the moves leading to a victorious line.
But that wasnt against a GM. The GM made me move bad. He pushed so hard that I played out of balance. It is much easier to play clean games against normal strenght players.
Once Fritz scored my game as having zero errors.
Doesn't mean much. I eventually lost a pawn and the game.
A few inaccuracies and 1 blunder is more like GM level play. 1300, held to the same standard, is more like >50% of the moves are inaccuracies and there are multiple game losing blunders.
Once Fritz scored my game as having zero errors.
Doesn't mean much. I eventually lost a pawn and the game.
A few inaccuracies and 1 blunder is more like GM level play. 1300, held to the same standard, is more like >50% of the moves are inaccuracies and there are multiple game losing blunders.
If thats true I did play a couple of games as a GM (against players at my own strenght), but the problem is that the GM´s is sabotaging my game so heavy that it is impossible to play accurate against them. Because of the pressure my error-rate will increase.
Yes, either you played as a GM or I don't put much faith in the chess.com computer analysis :)
How long does chess.com analyze a game anyway? Did you know some people put their game into their personal computer and let the engine analyze all night?
Once Fritz scored my game as having zero errors.
Doesn't mean much. I eventually lost a pawn and the game.
A few inaccuracies and 1 blunder is more like GM level play. 1300, held to the same standard, is more like >50% of the moves are inaccuracies and there are multiple game losing blunders.
If thats true I did play a couple of games as a GM (against players at my own strenght), but the problem is that the GM´s is sabotaging my game so heavy that it is impossible to play accurate against them. Because of the pressure my error-rate will increase.
A Fide 1300 is a talented good player, but not refined yet. He/she is maybe playing like online 1600. I dont think there are 50 % inaccuracies. I guess 5 to 20% of inaccuracies and one bad blunder in ca 50% of the games are more common.
Like I said, I mean held to the same standards as the GM.
Think of it this way, if the 1300 only makes 4 or 5 non-best moves in a whole game, what separates players from 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, etc?
But yes, lets say lots of pieces are traded early or the opponent is always making blunders, then yes you can even have a perfect game.
But if the players are evenly matched (and the pieces aren't traded off quickly) there will be a lot of bad moves.
I like fiction to...
Once Fritz scored my game as having zero errors.
Doesn't mean much. I eventually lost a pawn and the game.
A few inaccuracies and 1 blunder is more like GM level play. 1300, held to the same standard, is more like >50% of the moves are inaccuracies and there are multiple game losing blunders.
I made computeranalyze in a game against 1500 online. In this game, which he won, your estimations is a lot more accurate than mine. The inaccuracies is not far from 50%. It was equal before my final blunder.
Yes, either you played as a GM or I don't put much faith in the chess.com computer analysis :)
How long does chess.com analyze a game anyway? Did you know some people put their game into their personal computer and let the engine analyze all night?
They analyze maybe 7 minutes and tells me they have 2500 strenght. If thats true we can guess that the overnightanalyzes somebody does is well above 3000.
Like I said, I mean held to the same standards as the GM.
Think of it this way, if the 1300 only makes 4 or 5 non-best moves in a whole game, what separates players from 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, etc?
It is both the number of errors, but also the size of the errors. A 1300 maybe make a totally loosing error in 50% of the games (and some minor errors). A 2200 usually doesnt make big errors, only small ones, and of course not so many.
A 5 error game is obviously among the better ones from a 1300, usually there are more errors, but not always.
In otb-tournaments at my best I do beat players rated 700 above me, but of course I usually loose to them. (Best victory 1600 Norwegian-elo /1800 fide when I was 878 N-elo). Actually I usually am in big trouble meeting 700 above.
Elubas: In regards to the monkey, you are correct. To put this in chess terms, if an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, some of them will beat him. Well, actually that's an incorrect statement - to be accurate, an infinite number of monkeys will beat him. Both the number of games played and the number of games won by the monkeys are "countable infinities," you see...
The point to understand is this: when you play chess, all the moves are right there in front of you. If you happen to pick the right ones (even if you know nothing about chess strategy and just make random moves), you too can play like a grandmaster. Given that, the odds of the stronger player winning is never 100%.
In a 50 move game A lot of 1300`s plays maybe 45 moves as a GM now and then, and maybe 4 inaccuracies and one bad move. In such games they will loose.
A Gm usually plays 50 or 49, og maybe 48 moves as a GM.
In his best games the 1300 have more Gm-like moves.
This is of course based on empty guesswork, and might not be true at all, but I can see from chess.com computeranalyze that in my best game when I was close to 1300 fide (which I have never been, my first rating was 1422), that ther were only two inaccuracies, and those two was the moves leading to a victorious line.
But that wasnt against a GM. The GM made me move bad. He pushed so hard that I played out of balance. It is much easier to play clean games against normal strenght players.
That is absolutely not true. GMs consistently make the first or second "best" move. A 1300 comes no where close. Take any 1300 level game on here and let houdini analyze it and you will see what I mean. When I say this, I mean when the game leaves book as well
My initial USCF rating was 1250, but my first non-provisional rating was over 1400. An old friend of mine beat me in my first USCF tournament, but I beat him him more than fifteen years earlier when we were in high school. He remains in the 1300s while I have been over 1900. I recognize that some 1300s have skills, but they also have significant defects. Other 1300s are beginners on the way up. I was 1300 only when I was unrated, and until my second rated tournament. It is hard for me to imagine such unskilled players doing well against players who have clobbered me, let alone those who clobber those who clobber me.
My best OTB draw came after 40+ hours of prep for a match with a 2250 FIDE Master. I was mid-1700s at the time. My preparation gave me enormous respect for the skills of a relatively weak master compared to the skill of GMs, let alone super-GMs.