Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #541

    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? 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #542

    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 :)

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #543

    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

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #544

    ClavierCavalier

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

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #545

    madhacker

    Have you ever thought I was joking?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #546

    Ezrekiel

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

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #547

    Ziryab

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

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #548

    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.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #549

    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.

     

     

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #550

    WalangAlam

    David vs Goliath. Heard of that story? It can happen but the 1300 player have to have a very good coach who prepared quiet an interesting line so that the 2700 player would assume his opponent is making random moves so much so that he plays passive or careless and would subsequently fall into a trap. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #551

    madhacker

    @topman, that might account for the 1300 taking out an 1800, or at a push a 2000. But not a 2700.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #552

    Expertise87

    The whole David vs Goliath thing is ridiculous. A slingwith a rock could kill anyone, regardless of how big he is. A 2700 won't fall to a shot by a 1300, though. Maybe by a 2400.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #553

    WalangAlam

    Gambit Openings when played in bullet settings will give a 2700 problems specially if it is well prepared. With time pressure the 2700 will eventually blunder and might lose via time forfeit.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #554

    beck15

    It's really funny how so many people are rooting for 1300. It's natural, since this site is populated more by those leaning towards 1300s in their rating than 2700s.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #555

    pawnmiser7296

    i guess he could become disconnected and loose because of a poor internet connection!  lol  an example serino could look like this, they are playing in a 3rd world country, playing for fun and no reliable power and internet connection, suddenly a mortor goes off next door taking out the power pole...

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #556

    Tmb86

    "probability is relative"

    err, what? 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #557

    MisterBoneman

    speaking of probable relatives...what was Bobby Fischer's rating when he beat Donald Byrne. He was thirteen.

    His ratings went meteoric for the next few years. At 1760 he beat Samual Reshevsky (over 2600)...

    So, that a 1300 player could play AND WIN against a 2700 player?

    Yeah. It happens. Has happened. Will again happen.

    Hey...sharpen up your playing, folks. The next Bobby Fischer may just come calling any minute now.

    d=^))

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #558

    MisterBoneman

    CheapShotFail wrote:

    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.

    yes, yours was a "vcheap shot" and also a fail. Sorry to mention it, but, don't you imagine that it is an attitude like yours that brought down higher rated players such as Resevsky, Byrne, Byrne, Euwe, and many many more that looked at that determined little face of Bobby Fisher across from them?

    Or those who faced Judit Polgar during her transition... "oh, what a cute little girl. Do you know how a Knight moves, honey?" (i would have LOVED to watch those first games)...or Kasparov, Capablanca, any of dozens of "exceptions"...

    Not that I'm trying to scare anyone, but, perhaps it isn't as prevalent because some great players never did learn the game in the first place.

    But one day might.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #559

    Sunshiny

    Strawman. Nobody is saying the 2700 will underestimate the 1300 and treat the game as frivolous.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #560

    RetiFan

    Expertise87 wrote:

    The whole David vs Goliath thing is ridiculous. A slingwith a rock could kill anyone, regardless of how big he is. A 2700 won't fall to a shot by a 1300, though. Maybe by a 2400.

    And checkmate beats everyone, regardless of the rating...


Back to Top

Post your reply: