Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #321

    rooperi

    But, the moves of a 1300 are NOT random, he sits there, and makes 1300 plans, and plays 1300 moves. Remember, he's trying to win (that as the 1st post supposition). He's gonna be playing moves that look good to him, not rely on some hopelessly obscure chance that any random move may be good enough.

    I agree, randomly, eventually, a generator are gonna find 50 great moves in a row. A 1300 never will.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #322

    rooperi

    and, one of my favourite sayings:

    Statistics are like a bikini, what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital. :)

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #323

    Elubas

    rooperi: A plausible argument, but I still think the 1300 would eventually win.

    I would argue that the fact that a 1300's moves are not random probably improves his chances -- weak players are quite capable of playing good moves for the wrong reasons.

    He might never play some 2800 level sacrifice that the generator comes up with (in other words, he may never play perfectly), but on the other hand, he is more likely to take advantage of hanging mates in 1, or hanging pieces.

    Of course, that's my assumption. I think with infinite time a 1300 would not only beat a 2700 eventually, but will probably do so at a higher rate than the random generator, although it will still be extremely low.

    Again, if it's possible that a 2700 will hang mate in 1 (after seeing Petrosian's queen blunder and Kramnik's missing of mate in 1, I do think it's possible, although it will probably be even less likely against a lower rated player because lower rated players don't put as much pressure on you), and there is a chance that the 1300 will live long enough to see it and execute it, then it will happen, if we have infinite time to observe.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #324

    melvinbluestone

    Elubas is missing Estragon's point: A million monkeys, a million keyboards, etc. would not produce a Shakespeare work. The random events that would produce such a thing have already occured: It's Shakespeare himself. For such a phenomenon to repeat, the premise would have to be an infinite number of monkeys, with an infinite number of keyboards, and an infinite number of years....... But then, they wouldn't even need 'keyboards', they could start with pencils and paper. I mean, they've got an infinite amount of time to get this job done, so even if they didn't randomly scribble the words on the paper, they would eventually hit upon the idea of tools (remember the 'caveman' in 2001 A Space Odyssey who suddenly picked up a bone and started bashing heads?). Then they'd make more tools, and discover agriculture and build machines and schools and universities, and a few thousand years later....... Bam! Somebody writes Hamlet again! Mission accomplished!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #325

    Elubas

    There you go! Laughing

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #326

    Elubas

    Just to point out again, if the question was whether or not a 1300 could play a perfect game, I might agree with you rooperi that a 1300 would never do that.

    However, such a thing is not required for the 1300 to win the game, as the 2700 might not play perfectly, either.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #327

    FirebrandX

    melvinbluestone wrote:

     For such a phenomenon to repeat, the premise would have to be an infinite number of monkeys, with an infinite number of keyboards, and an infinite number of years.......

    If the first two variables are infinite, then you don't need an infinite number of years. The work would be produced on the first attempt.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #328

    rooperi

    FirebrandX wrote:
    melvinbluestone wrote:

     For such a phenomenon to repeat, the premise would have to be an infinite number of monkeys, with an infinite number of keyboards, and an infinite number of years.......

    If the first two variables are infinite, then you don't need an infinite number of years. The work would be produced on the first attempt.

    lol, true

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #329

    Conflagration_Planet

    I haven't read all these posts, but it seems that some people can't get it through their thick sculls that it doesn't matter that the 1300 player's moves are not random. Sooner or later they will be right, even if it's for the wrong reason.  As I stated earlier, I've gotten Lucky, and been right for the wrong reason, many times doing tactics.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #330

    Sunshiny

    Yes, but you were lucky for one move. Do you think you can be lucky for a long string of moves?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #331

    macer75

    Techincally, yes. But realistically, no.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #332

    Conflagration_Planet

    Sunshiny wrote:

    Yes, but you were lucky for one move. Do you think you can be lucky for a long string of moves?

    Given a long enough amount of time, yes.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #333

    Math0t

    FirebrandX wrote:
    melvinbluestone wrote:

     For such a phenomenon to repeat, the premise would have to be an infinite number of monkeys, with an infinite number of keyboards, and an infinite number of years.......

    If the first two variables are infinite, then you don't need an infinite number of years. The work would be produced on the first attempt.

    Infinite is a strange "number". You will even have an infinite amount of copies of the work, but it might be hard to find one between the infinite amount of crap...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #334

    Conflagration_Planet

    Math0t wrote:
    Firebrand wrote:
    melvinbluestone wrote:

     For such a phenomenon to repeat, the premise would have to be an infinite number of monkeys, with an infinite number of keyboards, and an infinite number of years.......

    If the first two variables are infinite, then you don't need an infinite number of years. The work would be produced on the first attempt.

    Infinite is a strange "number". You will even have an infinite amount of copies of the work, but it might be hard to find one between the infinite amount of crap...

    The fact that given an infinite amount of time, if something can happen, it will happen, proves that it's not impossible on the very next attempt. The odds however, can be so high against it, that for all practical purposes, you might as well say it's impossible. Though it can't ever be called virtually impossible. Just damn near impossible.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #335

    jclheriteau

    This probability argument is crap.

    Even a 1300 would always (most of the time:) win to a random move generator.

    Brownian movement & probability: your chessboard would jump in front of you...

     

    Coming back to the original subject, a 1300 would never beat a 2700 player, except when pieces move alone, hahaha:)

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #336

    Mr_Spocky

    yes f he wins luckly on time disconnection ect.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #337

    nameno1had

    I think the only way to give this idea any validity, is to look at the term "rating" as an inaccurate rating.

    If both players are well established FIDE or USCF players, having both have been playing recently, it would happen less often that you would win the Power Ball Lottery in the U.S.

    If you are talking Chess.com players and one is new, I can think of a couple of different scenarios for how it is possible, but in either of them, it is still unlikely for the game to take place to begin with.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #338

    Grandmaster3141

    Easy. In the middle of the game, the 1300 player kills the GM. This also works with people with ratings near 0. Tongue OutCool

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #339

    jposthuma

    The biggest upset that I have ever see was when an 1100 beat a 1900, and that was only because the 1900 blundered. It is definately possible, but I would make the odds of it happening about 0.05%, about 

    1/2,000.

    And now, think about the odds of winning the lottery:

    1/200,000!? 

    But of course, I'm feeling lucky today, so I am somehow going to have that 1 in a Million (literally) opportunity to win. :) (This refers to both things I talked about.)

    So, In reality, it will not happen.

    Sorry to answer your quenstion with a question, but why did you even ask this? Do you have dreams to someday reach 1300, and then get lucky?

    Sorry if that sounded rude.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #340

    _valentin_

    I see no reason to comment further, since apparently the depth of the observation I offered a while ago has eluded the people I was trying to explain it to.  Essentially, the argument I offered, and others said it with different words subsequently too, was that chess moves (or literary works) are subject to skill, and that GMs (or playwrights) don't flip a random coin to pick moves (or words), but use their good sense to reduce the number of options.

    The observation that a coin flip may do better than a 1300-level player is actually not unfounded, since a weak player would actively discard (as was already explained by others) or not even notice good move candidates, so his metaphorical "coin" will not even contain the set of good moves that are necessary to win against someone much stronger.

    In other words, with a fair coin flipping machine used on every move and an infinite set of games (i.e., infinite time), it may indeed be possible to eventually arrive at a situation of picking the right set of moves.  Still, the chance of that happening is so small (someone mentioned 1/30^40, which is close) that in practice no one will live long enough to experience this happening in our Universe.


Back to Top

Post your reply: