Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #581

    Elubas

    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.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #582

    FirebrandX

    Elubas wrote:

    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.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #583

    Elubas

    Kingpatzer wrote:

    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. 

    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.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #584

    beardogjones

    Plan:

       1. Earn a rating of 2700

       2. Play 1300s thousands of times without getting bored.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #585

    Elubas

    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 Smile

    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.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #586

    Ziryab

    MisterBoneman wrote:

     

    But the simple fact is, a 2700 player IS a 1300 player until they actually reach 2700.

     

    Actually, no. My initial non-provisional rating was over 1400.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #587

    alain978

    Almost impossible, but... The way it could happen is when the 1300 is at his best that day and the 2700 plays loose and fast because he knows his opponent is "only" 1300, and yet....

    The 1300 player will surely make the last mistake...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #588

    moonnie

    Someone i know (2100)  just beat topgrandmaster Ivan Sokolov (2699) in a normal time control lague game though 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #589

    varelse1

    Sure, maybe I could beat a 2700.

    And Maybe I could get a lucky punch and knock out Mike Tyson, too.

    But I aint holdin my breath to try that, either.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #590

    BLACK_STAR_RIDER

    best chance to start the match and the 2700 gets a computerproblem, indeed is forced to time-out...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #591

    solskytz

    <Kenpo> He will sooner or later get a point against you, you know...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #592

    erikido23

    moonnie wrote:

    Someone i know (2100)  just beat topgrandmaster Ivan Sokolov (2699) in a normal time control lague game though 

    WOW(that actually is impressive), 2100...1300 same difference.  

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #593

    0ort

    Here's a hypothetical situation to show it's possible: 1300 playing white    1.e4  e5  2.Qh5   2700 reaches for his knight but slips and grabs the king instead...  surely that has to happen at least once in a gazillion million billion trillion years?!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #594

    erikido23

    yeah...but the 1300 still wouldn't be able to win that game :P

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #595

    Pranjal588

    i think yes

    if the 2700 player does a blunder / the 1300 rating player concentrates

    most probably the game would be a fast game like a 1 min game

    in which any one can do a blunder ( a GM too )

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #596

    chessplayer11

    You could poke his eyes out. But he'd probably have the board memorized by then anyway.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #597

    0ort

    @erikido23 you really don't have a high opinion of 1300's do you!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #598

    erikido23

    @  oort...you have been accused of not having a sense of humor once haven't you?

     

    PS..I agree the 1300 would win it...They just wouldn't realize they mated when they played qxe5

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #599

    Vyomo

    I don't know about %, but I have seen a 2500 lose to 1300 in otb, and I have beaten an IM in OTB(although I messed up the later games, this is my proudest achievement).

    I would suggest Caro-Kann if you want to try, because I did that vs the IM. My endgame was better, so I won.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #600

    chasm1995

    no offense, but i highly doubt it, even after a terrible blunder. i suggest trying to turn the game into a learning experience instead of a competition; at least then you will seize the opportunity to its fullest.


Back to Top

Post your reply: