Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 22 months ago · Quote · #501

    Elubas

    Again pellik, it's just one assumption against another.

    I just know, from my experience from playing people much weaker than me (indeed, even people around 1300 once in a while), that you sometimes get into these closed-ish or symmetrical-ish positions where, although you want your opponent to just give you an obvious blunder, the nature of the position forces you to take a more grinding approach. Remember that, of course, as good as a great player is, all they can do is try to provoke a mistake, and exploit it. If the position doesn't give many opportunities like that, it won't necessarily happen like magic.

    Also, I totally agree that what you describe is the most common way a GM would make a blunder; however, I would not go the extra step and say that any other circumstances in which a GM would make a blunder are absolutely nonexistent. Sometimes you're trying to attack on the kingside, play Qg4, and forget about that queen on a4 black had that's covering it. It's simply temporary blindness that anyone is capable of.

    Games like Stripunsky-Onischuk, or even Petrosian-Bronstein, seemed to be, essentially, unprovoked blindness. In fact, in the Petrosian game, Petrosian had a fantastic position as white, and was grinding his opponent in the usual fashion. However, he simply forgot that the knight was controlling d6 (I think the queen was hung on d6), and in fact, when you look at it, it is sort of tricky in a way -- sometimes your eyes play tricks like that on you, especially if you're in the mindset that your position is "too dominating" for one of your pieces to actually be attacked.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #502

    erikido23

    I find it funny how people say...hey theres a chance that the gm will blunder...Well yeah there is a one in a million chance and there is a guarantee that the 1300 will positionally (if not outright blunder) blunder within the first 5-6 moves of the game.  

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #503

    rooperi

    In that position, the perfect move would have been a accepted draw offer 49 moves ago

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #504

    rooperi

    thief1 wrote:
    e. 

    Another option: 1300 could randomly choose his next move and so with probability around 1/20^60 he will play the best move every time-and he will win or at least draw the game. 

    No, a 1300 does not play randomly, he very deliberately plays bad moves because he thinks they're good.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #505

    deepak64

    In a game with 1300 ranked player with 2700 ranked player; worry is to be done by 2700 ranked player, other wise it shall be most entertaining game, as result is known to both sides, before start of game.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #506

    Estragon

    Elubas wrote:

    Again pellik, it's just one assumption against another.

    I just know, from my experience from playing people much weaker than me (indeed, even people around 1300 once in a while), that you sometimes get into these closed-ish or symmetrical-ish positions where, although you want your opponent to just give you an obvious blunder, the nature of the position forces you to take a more grinding approach. Remember that, of course, as good as a great player is, all they can do is try to provoke a mistake, and exploit it. If the position doesn't give many opportunities like that, it won't necessarily happen like magic.

    Also, I totally agree that what you describe is the most common way a GM would make a blunder; however, I would not go the extra step and say that any other circumstances in which a GM would make a blunder are absolutely nonexistent. Sometimes you're trying to attack on the kingside, play Qg4, and forget about that queen on a4 black had that's covering it. It's simply temporary blindness that anyone is capable of.

    Games like Stripunsky-Onischuk, or even Petrosian-Bronstein, seemed to be, essentially, unprovoked blindness. In fact, in the Petrosian game, Petrosian had a fantastic position as white, and was grinding his opponent in the usual fashion. However, he simply forgot that the knight was controlling d6 (I think the queen was hung on d6), and in fact, when you look at it, it is sort of tricky in a way -- sometimes your eyes play tricks like that on you, especially if you're in the mindset that your position is "too dominating" for one of your pieces to actually be attacked.

    The problem is that 1300 could not recognize or exploit such blunders by 2700s if they happened.  And neither example you site is even a 2700 player at the time.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #507

    Elubas

    That's the problem? Well, I think he could, if they were simple enough!

    Of course, I know that there is often this psychological energy where the weaker player feels like his opponent can't blunder, so when that person does blunder the weaker player gets nowhere near realizing it was a mistake, but I don't think that will apply 100% of the time.

    I think it's at least as tough of an assumption that a 1300 won't see that simple blunder purely due to this psychological effect than the assumption that once in a while, this effect might not work.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #508

    Elubas

    No more infinite monkey discussion? Nobody wants to discuss whether an elephant would win a fight against an ant 100% of the time? Come on guys!

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #509

    waffllemaster

    Elubas wrote:

    No more infinite monkey discussion? Nobody wants to discuss whether an elephant would win a fight against an ant 100% of the time? Come on guys!

    http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakeinafight.com/

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #510

    VanillaKnightPOC

    Would an elephant sized ant beat an elephant in a fight?

    Would an ant sized elephant beat an ant in a fight?

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #511

    Expertise87

    Yes to the first, no to the second.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #512

    waffllemaster

    Looks like pound for pound the ant wins eh.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #513

    Expertise87

    Actually an elephant sized ant couldn't exist - it would asphyxiate itself.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #514

    VanillaKnightPOC

    Elephant sized ants are suicidal, TIL.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #515

    AndyClifton

    Expertise87 wrote:

    Actually an elephant sized ant couldn't exist - it would asphyxiate itself.

    It also wouldn't be able to move.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #516

    Expertise87

    Yes, an inconvenient side effect of being dead.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #517

    waffllemaster

    Ok then, how about an elephant vs a swarm of ants with total ant mass equal to one elephant mass.

    Google calculations give me ~1.5 million ants.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #518

    MyCowsCanFly

    "Giant ants were the terror of the movie Them! (1954).  Rajesh and Howard realize giant ants would be a cool new method of transportation.  But Sheldon Cooper is right:  unfortunately physics determines that giant ants cannot exist on our planet as we know it."

    Spock made a brief appearance in the movie. If giant ants aren't possible, they must have shrunk the people.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #519

    solskytz

    An elephant is not much the fighting animal... it probably wouldn't recognize the danger in time. 

    also, 1.5 million ants are way more flexible than an elephant! There are just so many ways they can split and swarm... how will he block 10,000 of them coming up his nostril? while 20,000 more are busy tickling an armpit, 5000 busy bothering the end of his digestive canal, and 15,000 more crawling up an ear? This could drive anyone crazy!

     

    Piece value in chess: 9 for a queen, 10 for a couple rooks, 12 for four minor pieces - in total, 31 pawns. 

    Now, how would a setup of King + usual pieces, standing on their first line, fare against an array of King + 31 pawns where the black king stands on e8 and the pawns occupy the whole of the 7th, 6th, 5th and 4th ranks except for, say, d4? 

    I remind you that each pawn can make a double jump on its first move!! Monstrous indeed :-)

    I'd take that against a 2700 player any day of the week - hey! Material is even and he even gets white :-) he should be happy (true that I'm no 1300, but I promise to patzer him a couple pawns at some point...)

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #520

    AndyClifton

    Expertise87 wrote:

    Yes, an inconvenient side effect of being dead.

    I meant that their legs would break from the weight. Smile


Back to Top

Post your reply: