15854 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!
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.
<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).
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.
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?
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...
There is always someone better my friend. Always...
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.
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.
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...
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).
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 . 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 :)
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
. 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.
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
Have you ever thought that some people prefer slower chess and don't have people to play OTB?
Have you ever thought I was joking?
Well, I may not think much of the initial "offer" but at least the OP has created a lively thread :)
Someone pointed out that the 1300 makes bad moves because he thinks they are good moves. That's worth remembering.
Some people say that they also make moves based on not fully understanding the board and often don't take the time to try.
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.
Game not aborting.
by JimmySmash a few minutes ago
9/23/2014 - Mate in 3
by TomHaegin 6 minutes ago
by Till_98 8 minutes ago
19 years old - too late to become a pro?
by cheesemate 8 minutes ago
by Stoeptegeltje 20 minutes ago
Why is live chess terrible at THIS time?
by InfiniteFlash 26 minutes ago
The King's Indian
by varelse1 32 minutes ago
Ashley's Million-dollar chess tourney - but bring your own clocks
by maskedbishop 44 minutes ago
ads on premium account!
by soupram 46 minutes ago
1,000 signs you play chess too much.
by Nine_fires 52 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!