Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 22 months ago · Quote · #541

    madhacker

    Yeah ok point taken, you know what I meant, I meant base level for achieving a title. Hell, I've come across titled players rated lower than me before.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #542

    solskytz

    <Clavier Cavalier> I like your creative and imaginative ideas as to how a 1300 vs. 2700 wins are possible!

    BTW, did you notice that my video channel houses around 100 different videos? The Rhapsody in Blue is just the one that features as you enter (although personally I like it MORE than the orchestrated version - as the pianist needs also to be the orchestra... more imagination and ability are necessary to provide a strong interpretation when you're on your own).

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #543

    solskytz

    I don't know how you managed to make 2109 in live bullet (I struggle to climb and stay on top of 1700) - but it looks like you shouldn't be too far from becoming titled yourself. 

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #544

    madhacker

    Hmm... my real-life rating is 2043. By your quite reasonable argument, I need to double in strength to reach 2143. Which is still nowhere near master standard. I suck, don't rub it in Laughing

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #545

    beck15

    madhacker wrote:

    Hmm... my real-life rating is 2043. By your quite reasonable argument, I need to double in strength to reach 2143. Which is still nowhere near master standard. I suck, don't rub it in

    Try being a 1300 (I'm unrated, but if I had to take a guess, I'd say that is what I am). I still beat 99% of my RL friends. All social, of course. This gives the little 1300 a small ego boost, and he goes to an online chess site and gets his ass whooped. Now, take that for being sucky. How about it?

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #546

    solskytz

    All is relative... but improvement is God!!

    And to Madhacker - would love to play some blitz with you (I'm too slow for 1-minute bullet) and discuss some chess - I get a feeling that this could be interesting...

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #547

    RetiFan

    beck15 wrote:
    madhacker wrote:

    Hmm... my real-life rating is 2043. By your quite reasonable argument, I need to double in strength to reach 2143. Which is still nowhere near master standard. I suck, don't rub it in

    Try being a 1300 (I'm unrated, but if I had to take a guess, I'd say that is what I am). I still beat 99% of my RL friends. All social, of course. This gives the little 1300 a small ego boost, and he goes to an online chess site and gets his ass whooped. Now, take that for being sucky. How about it?

    There is always someone better my friend. Always...

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #548

    hicetnunc

    madhacker wrote:

    Okay, so here's an extension question. What rating *would* you need to be to have a cat's chance in hell against a 2700 GM in a one-off game?

    I think on a good day, you can play 200 pts. above your rating, and conversely, on a bad day, someone can play 200 pts. under his rating. So my guess would be 400 pts. as the largest gap for an upset to occur.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #549

    StMichealD

    2700 guy waste 59 seconds on a 1 minute game going to the washroom and thinks the game is a 60 minute game and sends one minute to move, he loses

    Let's face it, a 1300 probably won't even make it to challenging a 2700.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #550

    Elubas

    But there have been plenty of upsets involving more than 400 points before -- I remember in one tournament a year or two ago (it was posted here on chess.com, either as an article or blog), GM Arun Prasad, who had a FIDE rating above 2500 at that time, lost to a girl only rated in the 1900s. She was a young girl, though, so it's not impossible that her strength was higher than her rating suggested. Still, 600 points...

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #551

    cookiemonster161140

    hicetnunc wrote:
    madhacker wrote:

    Okay, so here's an extension question. What rating *would* you need to be to have a cat's chance in hell against a 2700 GM in a one-off game?

    I think on a good day, you can play 200 pts. above your rating, and conversely, on a bad day, someone can play 200 pts. under his rating. So my guess would be 400 pts. as the largest gap for an upset to occur.

    200 or even 400 points wouldn't really be news. 

    As a former USCF "A" Player I have beaten several masters, an IM, an FM, and drawn with a GM. But at the same events I've lost to players several classes below me.

    Thing is the result of one game or even a handful of games alone are a poor indicator of greatness, as those players who beat me in some cases were up and coming stars whose ratings just hadn't caught up yet. 

    Where players consistently play at high level it shows in their results, then their ratings DO catch up and the titles follow. Which would tend to suggest titled players have fewer bad days, and maybe I'm going out on a limb here but when a regular player beats a titled player it's mostly because the regular player played well (because a regular player NOT playing well wouldn't make it out of the opening). 

    Logical? 

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #552

    Elubas

    It's a tad annoying that it seems like there are so many A players (I'm an A player) and B players that have beaten so many strong players that I never have beaten -- the best I have done was a draw against a 2100, and a draw against a 2200 who wanted to win clear first so only played 8 opening moves and offered one to me :) I have however beaten lots of 2000s.

    I'm kidding of course Smile. Some people are just more consistent than others -- some players are the kind of people who will beat IMs and then lose to a 1600 the next round :)

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #553

    CheapShotFail

    This topic is preposterous to begin with, since probability is relative. You can do an event with a .0000000001 chance of succeeding, and never have it happen for all of time, since probability is not cumulative, and therefore will reset after every attempt back to 

    .0000000001

    . In fact, theoretically it is approximately as probable as an event with that .0000000001 probability to happen as it is for an event with a .9999999999 probability to not happen, so to speak.

     

     

    Also, 1400 points is an insurmountable gap in mental understanding and fortitude which cannot be bridged by a mere 1300, let alone that 1400 points is more than double the 1300 player's own rating. The player would not possess the same level of tactical, positional, opening, and combinational knowledge which a 2700 would utilize, thus not only starting the game inferior due to a lack of opening comprehension, but further digging themselves deeper into a hole the longer they play. A 2700 is a super GM generally, therefore a more appropriate comparison would be, for example, a race where Usain Bolt is pitted against a 10 year old child, not yet ready to maximize their own potential in such an event, let alone being able to compete against such an overwhelming opponent. Likewise, a 1300 player would be incapable of consciously making the moves required to win against a 2700, since they themselves have not developed enough to comprehend and formulate such moves, and if they are then they simply should not be rated 1300. Point: probability is not an accurate measurement for this event, and should be disregarded. Take into account all the facts, details, and contributing factors in the proposed game of chess before you make a decision based solely on probability.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #554

    madhacker

    solskytz wrote:

    All is relative... but improvement is God!!

    And to Madhacker - would love to play some blitz with you (I'm too slow for 1-minute bullet) and discuss some chess - I get a feeling that this could be interesting...

    3/0 is the slowest I will go... I just don't get people who play slow chess on the internet. Chessboards are for slow chess Smile

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #555

    ClavierCavalier

    Have you ever thought that some people prefer slower chess and don't have people to play OTB?

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #556

    madhacker

    Have you ever thought I was joking?

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #557

    Ezrekiel

    Well, I may not think much of the initial "offer" but at least the OP has created a lively thread :)

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #558

    Ziryab

    Someone pointed out that the 1300 makes bad moves because he thinks they are good moves. That's worth remembering.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #559

    ClavierCavalier

    Some people say that they also make moves based on not fully understanding the board and often don't take the time to try.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #560

    Eseles

    CheapShotFail wrote:

    A 2700 is a super GM generally, therefore a more appropriate comparison would be, for example, a race where Usain Bolt is pitted against a 10 year old child, not yet ready to maximize their own potential in such an event, let alone being able to compete against such an overwhelming opponent.

     

     


Back to Top

Post your reply: