10996 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!
"probability is relative"err, what?
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.
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.
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.
Strawman. Nobody is saying the 2700 will underestimate the 1300 and treat the game as frivolous.
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...
Yes, but 2700s tend to see checkmate very very well...
And a 1300 isn't at all likely to get into a position where he or she has checkmate against a 2700...
if you are reffering to my comment, sorry. The history is past tense. They were highly rated players and were pounded into the ground like tent stakes. SWEET!
Rare? Granted. But to the topic's heading, entirely possible.
I guess maybe the higher rated players may have used your words as their excuse...but then, they wouldn't have been that highly rated, eh?
I'm sure Fischer was simply under rated. It doesn't mean his opponents under estimated him based on his age. Anyway, nobody else is making a statement that a 2700 will underestimate a 1300, thus it is a strawman.
<Madhacker> right - indeed, 3 0 is my favorite internet playing time. Funny that it's considered 'slow' nowadays.
With chessboards I generally go for 5 0, and 3 0 seems crazy to me - however 3 0 for the internet looks about right, as 5 0 makes me die of boredom when I have to sit there and wait for the other guy to finally MOVE...
So yes, by all means...
The underestimation you speak of is elusive. I mentioned it with Judit because I know from a friend who played her, and though being nice, had intended on mopping the floor with her.
Such did not happen. Bernie took the hit, she walked with the grin.
Strawman is (to my knowledge) if I blame the lights in the room where the games are being played. Or the weather.
But the simple fact is, a 2700 player IS a 1300 player until they actually reach 2700.
Not that difficult to comprehend, is it? I don't think any players were hatched from their eggs with 2700 stamped on their heads, right? It's a moo point (a cow's opinion) though, as it has nothing to do with actually playing chess. Only when that person gets their proper rating.
Or, maybe it WAS the weather? d=^)) I'm reluctant to mention this, but YOUR attitude here and now IS an underestimation of the possibility.
Intending to mop the floor with someone doesn't mean that person plays weaker.
You're thinking of the word "excuse." A strawman is a false argument created to be attacked by the maker of the argument.
You probably missed it, but the argument had evolved to state a player that actually plays at a 1300 level.
"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"
Look, I will give you that in both situations, one guy is way better at something than the other.
Beyond that, your comparsion is invalid. If a 2700 misses a mate in 1, the 1300 won't necessarily be incapable of finding it.
It seems to me to be quite hard to find something in a race equivalent to missing a mate in 1 -- maybe if the guy trips -- but that's more comparable to one of the guys having a heart attack during a chess game -- more of an outside factor. There just isn't much room for variation in a race, other than fatigue. In chess, a win can only be had when someone makes a mistake, and so the exploitation of skill is much deeper than simply running faster.
I'm not sure if I am making a great distinction here, but my point is that, to claim that the two scenarios are of the exact same nature based purely on the point mentioned in my first paragraph, is much too shallow to be valid.
How about a 1000 beating a 2400?
Elubas then consider a race between Mario Andretti and a 16 year-old brand new driver on an otherwise pristine course. It comes down to simple ability. The difference in ability between the 2700 and the 1300 is not easily overstated.
In fact I would go further: a 1000 could probably beat a 2700 too, if we had an infinite amount of games being played between 1000s and 2700s.
So many people here have offered tons of things that would get in the way of upsets like these -- how could the blunder happen when the 2700 isn't under pressure; wouldn't the 1300 blunder first; the 1300 wouldn't see something the 2700 doesn't see; the 1300 wouldn't have enough technique to win the resultant position, etc.
I completely agree that each and every one of these things are huge obstacles in the upset occurring, and that's why it would almost never happen.
I'm just not sure that each component is, by the strictest definition, impossible. Sure, a lot of times when I play much weaker players and I blunder, they don't see it either because they assume I won't blunder. Does that mean such a scenario is doomed to happen every single time I blunder? Not at all! There have certainly been times where my lower rated opponent did in fact find my blunder and took advantage of it!
And yes, it really does occur, sometimes, that the higher rated player blunders before the lower rated player. The way a higher rated player intuitively feels a position, how he blunder checks (checking for hanging pieces, fork patterns, etc), will certainly reduce the chances that he will make a mistake, but I don't think it's perfect.
Just like how in poker you can do everything the wrong way and still win, such can also happen in chess. If you don't blunder check a move before making it, that simply means that if the move is wrong, you won't know about it. However, that doesn't mean that the move can't turn out to be flawless anyway.
This all boils down to the fact that, although being wise and intelligent about something can "improve your fate," it cannot "completely control it," and that means that sometimes bad things will still, occasionally, happen to you.
In this case, fate would have to go way, way wrong, but I don't think it's impossible.
Which was a conclusion already agreed to like 20 pages ago. It's technically possibly just like winning the Powerball Lottery twice in a row is.
I'll remain with the running since running as a form of competition is extremely pure, and the contrast it has with chess might make my point easier to show:
For a runner to win, all he has to do is run better; in chess, playing better does not guarantee that you will win or even draw.
I should define better in terms of chess: I would say that it means that, the way you approach the game, will make it easier to control your fate. For example, checking for hanging pieces is better than not doing so, because if you don't, you have to pray in fate that you haven't allowed your opponent to take one of your pieces; whereas in the former case, you make sure that your pieces aren't hanging. But of course, you can only be as sure as your perceptions are: If your eyes are playing tricks on you and somehow you misjudge whether a piece is hanging or not, then you will still hang the piece even with the blunder check. It's just that you will hang it less often.
1. Earn a rating of 2700
2. Play 1300s thousands of times without getting bored.
I am of course answering the question in a very theoretical way. In the practical world, you should never in a million years (literally) expect this kind of thing to happen, or you'd be a fool.
In a gazillion million billion trillion years, though, maybe it's not so unwise to expect it
I keep posting though because there are people who literally think it's impossible, even when talking theoretically.
Not that such people might not be right -- I certainly can't be 100% sure of the answer myself.
Actually, no. My initial non-provisional rating was over 1400.
My road from 1200 to 2100 in less than 2 years
by bb_gum234 3 minutes ago
Pretty good Sicilian game if I do say so myself
by XpertPhoenix 3 minutes ago
Looking for a (Female) Mixed-Doubles Partner for World Open
by stuzzicadenti 4 minutes ago
i feel bad for both UK and America chess
by joliepa 6 minutes ago
Is the Evans Gambit next?
by Madness20 6 minutes ago
by puzzle_solver_1997 6 minutes ago
Post your best miniatures here
by batgirl 9 minutes ago
How to Improve?
by bb_gum234 14 minutes ago
THE MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS BAN RULE
by intensetbug 22 minutes ago
Do we really need weighted pieces? and so many sets?
by Giampo 24 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!