9644 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Neither one of us thought anything about those 2 King moves but it got me my first win against a former 2100+ rated player that still plays regularly though not in tournaments anymore. I on the other hand have never been rated nor played in any tournaments. The point is, aside from a means to jockey everyone behind Anand and Carlson, ratings are not a surefire indicator of a persons playing level as anyone can lose to anyone at any time.
Against a 2700, the 2100 will score less than 3%.
Just for the record, I think 'perfect play' requires even more than knowing the result of any given position with best play. I would assume the perfect player not only to know that, but also to be able to assess the odds of his opponent to choose this or that move in any given position. This way, the 'perfect player' would be able to create maximum problems for any given opponent and reduce his drawing chances to the minimum
Hehe. I've recently made some funny predictions in some of my blitz games. When I make a threat and my opponent pauses longer than usual, sometimes I get this feeling and I think "he's trying to talk himself into this move, even though it's a bad move"
Pretty standard stuff, we've all talked ourselves into a bad move, but I've never gotten the feeling that it's happening to my opponent right at the moment it seems to be actually happening (often they end up playign it). :)
That may be so, Vengeance. But on the forum of a chess website we have to stroke the egos of chess intellectuals, and that means the only acceptable opinion is that the high rated chess player can never lose, because of his inate superiority. NEVER LOSE!
Nonsense. Either you haven't read the posts or you are incapable of understanding them.
In ratings systems like Elo or USCF, the maximum deviation is 400 points difference. At that range, there is no practical possibility of the lower rated player winning except by a complete fluke - which does happen on very rare occasions. But it is a statistical anomaly when that happens, it cannot be predicted but the possibility is allowed for by any decisive game having to result in at least a 1 point rating change.
The question of this thread is whether a Super-GM of 2700 could lose to a 1300 player. If we assume accurate ratings, this is more than THREE TIMES the standard deviation. These are not players of different levels, they are players of different worlds.
The rating system cannot exclude the possibility that the 2700 might drop dead of a heart attack in the middle of the game and lose on time, but that's about the only way it is ever going to happen.
Perfect play is defined with assumption that your opponent will make the best moves.
But you can define it differently, for example: perfect player can not only read but also control mind of his opponents. You look in his eyes (or screen) and you suddenly start blundering.
My definition isn't something alien to what many OTB players do. When selecting a move, besides its 'objective' value (as much as you can assess it), you also take into account how to pose problems to your opponent.
From an objective point of view, many different moves may lead to the same result on 'best play'. If you assume your opponent can make mistakes (if he can't, the 'perfect player' might as well agree to a draw immediately), then it makes sense to take into account how to provoke those mistakes, or at least increase their likelyhood (orth. ?). I can't imagine any 'perfect play' definition not including this dimension.
Not making mistakes is great. Provoking your opponent into making some is even better
I don't consider making you opponent unable to play by unethical means as a part of the equation.
Persuading opponents to go wrong is a considerable skill in poker. Seemingly the two games have at least something in common.
thief1 that is not perfect play.
Read the comments. It is a distance to conversion position, not distance to mate, and the last several moves by Black were suboptimal.
Definition of perfect play:
For side with advantage - convert the advantage as soon as possible (shortest number of moves).
For the side with disadvantage - hold on to the position before capitulating for as long as possible (longest number of moves).
I don't agree with your definition for the side with the disadvantage beck. Sometimes the computer will play moves, especially in an endgame, where they are playing to increase the number of moves to checkmate, but other moves are harder to work out a win against.
That is merely a human weakness. Example, Lasker was said to choose 2nd best moves in tricky positions to pressure his opponent psychologically. A flawed move might work against 99.99% of your opposition, but that doesn't make it a perfect move. A perfect move, is perfect. For instance, endgame tablebases are perfect, or so I am lead to believe.
Ok...not sure what time those marathon runners can actually clock, but I had a friend which had previously competed in the olympics. He was competitive but not the best. He would run a mile in about 4 minutes, rest 30 seconds then do it again. He would do this repeatedly. And yeah, his legs had muscles on muscles. I live in Albuquerque, NM. Some of the marathon runners come here to train because it is 5,000 ft + in the city and of course there are mountains nearby. Funny thing about that kid beating a grandmaster. Was that a simul or a one on one? My guess is if it was a one on one the GM found himself playing the player and not the board. Regardless, the kid was not a 1300!
Hey you live in Albuquerque? Seen any of that blue crystal knocking about?
There is a technical point that most readers surely kind of feel, but is not very often put into words, so I'll try and make that effort for the benefit of all.
How do you feel when you have to confront somebody, say, 100 points above your own level? Say you're an 1672, and the guy's suddenly coming up, full of a towering 1772 points and you've got to play him?
Sure, you keep telling yourself, he's within my range, I should be able to beat him, sure sure, he's not much better, etc. etc. - but deep down you know you're kind of tricking yourself as he's really stronger, knows more, sees more, understands more, is quicker on some stuff, knows some other stuff more deeply... you know that don't you :-)
Then later, suppose you got your training session with him, and now you're (for example) 1670. Next you meet someone who's 1570... you think - oh God he's easy... or - maybe I shouldn't be playing a weak player now, or - well ok, let's relax a little... you know that you beat the guy - well, not every game, but like, it's comfortable playing somebody like that as you know he's edible... not so?
Come to think about it, being 100 points higher than somebody means you're close to twice as good - yeah, that's right, two times better.
How do I know it? Because according to the elo formulas you're supposed to get 64% out of him, and he - 36% out of you.
Maybe this doesn't sound like very much of a difference, but hey, pay attention here - suppose you were to actually play the guy for a 10-game series - then you're supposed to score (and often will score something in the order of) 6.5:3.5, not so?
So - it's almost double, close to twice as good...
if you play to ten, the most likely result is something in the order of 10.5:5.5 - or 10:5, or 10:6... almost twice as good, man, and I mean real close!!
Funny how the formula keeps extending that way, roughly... - 200 points of difference spells three times better (75% - 25%), then 300 points - close to seven times (!!!) better - (85% - 15%).
With 400 points we get to a skill differential of eleven and a half times better (92% - 8%), then it's
500 points - 24 times better (96% - 4%)
(with these large numbers, the approximations are less and less exact of course, especially as I keep rounding it to the closest percent point...)
600 points - 49 times better (98% - 2%), and finally, the last numerical value provided by the formula -
700 points - 99 times better (99% - 1%).
The elo scale is a logarithmic scale! It advances roughly by powers of almost-two.
Each 100 points in the scale, while still beatable, while still accessible, represents a real gap in knowledge, understanding and 'seeing'.
Due to elements of luck and drawing zone, this differential doesn't ever translate to 'always wins', but the 100 point differential is real and BIG.
Amazing that a game can have so many clear and distinct levels in it...
So - can a 1300 beat a 2700? Suppose he didn't learn and improve? Suppose no extreme medical condition occurs?
But maybe yes?
They are perfect by definition of perfect play (neglecting 50-moves rule). Definition of perfect play is what beck15 explained few posts ago. Here is nothing to agree or disagree about that.
That definition only works if one side has a winning position. It doesn't work for equal positions where neither side is winning by force.
It does, because in an equal position, they are both attacking (for shortest victory), as well as defending (for longest resistance). An inaccurate move from either side can spell their downfall. And by definition, an inaccurate move is not perfect.
Well said.So, in a thousand games, an 1300 might draw one game with a 2700 under standard tournament conditions. It is even possible, however remote, that the 1300 might draw the first game.
It seems like almost everyone in this thread is proceeding with the assumption that it is possible for a 1300 player to get insanely lucky and beat a 2700 just because the chance is non-zero. However, there is no evidence that such a thing is possible.
We don't know if the gap in skill can be bridged. We don't know if there is an ultimate limit to how much of a difference luck can make in chess.
Once it happens that a 1300 beats a 2700 then we will be able to answer this question definitively. But as it stands now there is such a small number of games between these different skill levels that it is quite possible such an upset will simply never occur.
While there is a non-zero chance that such an upset could occur, simply because it is impossible to prove something does not exist, there also exists the chance (and I'd argue that it is a much greater one) that such an upset is not possible.
Most games between 1300s and 2700s are over before move 12.
Rate the username above
by Kriptacular a few minutes ago
Difference in ranking between standard, blitz/bullet and tactics trainer
by WISH_I_WAS_A_GM a few minutes ago
Best Single volume repertoire for black?
by FirebrandX a few minutes ago
Why do children quit chess when they grow up?
by Artemis_Senju a few minutes ago
3/7/2014 - Mate in 4
by deepak21071974 5 minutes ago
Revisiting: are you for or against the use of chess engines in online chess?
by Bur_Oak 21 minutes ago
Chess Players Should Be More Funny
by Darth_Doom 28 minutes ago
Making the Chess.com Forums Better
by ConnorMacleod_151 29 minutes ago
Can You Survive?
by Chessman265 29 minutes ago
3/6/2014 - Mate in 6
by justcheckin99 39 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!