12091 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!
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...
What? You've never played 1/0 OTB? You've never lived!
Seriously, just challenge me to a 3/0 whenever you see me on live chess, I'm happy to play. My 3/0 rating is lower though, not even 2000 I think. Clearly I play better without thinking...
Someone i know (2100) just beat topgrandmaster Ivan Sokolov (2699) in a normal time control lague game though
Wow! That must be one of the biggest upsets of all time surely? Would you be able to post the game for us to see?
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.
isn't it amusing that some blatantly ridiculous and obviously preposterous notions aren't questioned at all, just accepted as truth, while other equally incredulous claims are denounced as such.
in my experience, it seems if you have enough financial and political capital you could claim you have a pet dolphin with dragon wings and people wouldn't question this at all. rather they would ask you "oh wow! what's his name? (can I kiss your butt some more, please?)".
I might perhaps challenge you to a duel, Elubas of Nonesuchchesttershire, if you keep this up.
It's true that there is a lot of speculation here. It's hard to really prove this stuff; all I can say is that this line of reasoning (in my posts), given the choice, is the one that makes the most sense to me.
I could never beat a 2700 in a million years.
No way! Unless it's something like Zukertort's case, but mostly it'll be abandoned. :P
Check out the link
I think a 1300 is rated too high to have a chance. His "chess knowledge" would get in the way of him accidentally playing a good game. A 200 rated player has a small theoretical chance.
lol, so what must 1300 rated player should do is to lose games rapidly, so he can have a chance against 2700.
Nonsense. A 1300s chess knowledge consists mostly of faulty ideas buttressed by the ability to spot two move tactics.
An older man like yourself should be able to relate to someone thinking they know everything after they gain a bit of knowledge. Maybe you don't have teenagers? :-p
I do. My teenagers are now in their 20s, which has raised my IQ slightly in their eyes, although they remain deeply skeptical of all that I claim to know.
I also remember when I thought I was a pretty hot chess player because a good tournament pushed me up to 1525. OTOH, September 2010 was the last time I lost to a player under 1600 in a tournament, and that player was 1602 after the event was rated.
It is not so much the score but the knowlege that gets that score. A monkey who knows how to play has every move as a candidate move. However someone who knows a little has a few candidate moves every turn. His limited knowlege will elimanate moves he needs to make. So that person will not have the theorectical chance to make all the correct moves.
edit: Basically what I am saying is if you put all the legal moves into a hat and randomly picked one you have a small chance. However if a 1300 tries to come up with the best moves based on how he plays chess...then all the moves are not in the hat and he loses every time.
In March 28, 2011 Anand lost to a 10 yr old junior player from Uzbekistan in a simul match. The Teenager was rated 1900. Check out the article in chessvibes.com
Here is the game. Anand, Viswanathan vs Igonin, Temur 0-1 Simul 2011.3.28
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3Nge7 6. O-O O-O 7. d3 d6 8. Rb1 f5 9. Bd2 h6 10. b4 g5 11. b5 Nd4 12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Nd5 Nxd5 14. Bxd5+ Kh8 15. a4 f4 16. a5 Rb8 17. Qc2 Bh3 18. Rfc1 fxg3 19. hxg3 Qf6 20. Be1 h5 21. c5 h4 22. cxd6 hxg3 23. f3 Qxd6 24. Be4 Qf4 25. Bd2 Qh426. e3 Bg2 0-1
If the kid had been 1400, you might have a point.
Yes obviously. But if the Thread was changed to " Can a 1900 rated kid beat a world champ?" would that be a yes?
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player could beat a 2700 rated player"
Of course there is a "chance". I once was attacked by a kick boxer and two other guys and I cam out on top. Most anything is possible.
I would guess it has already happened in a simul.
I think you're missing the point. It's not that a 1300 player is worse than a random move generator but that a 1300 will never beat a 2700 because the 1300 will always make roughly 1300 level type moves whereas at least a random move generator has a (minisculely) small chance of randomly emulating 2700 level play
Magnus became a GM at the age of 13. He was over 2500 then.
you clearly have no idea of the game tree complexity of chess.
Chessbazaar's Dubrovnik 4" crimson problem?
by Eyechess a few minutes ago
3/29/2015 - Front And Center
by chesspeople102492 2 minutes ago
3/28/2015 - Y.Pratibha - H.Koneru, Calicut, 2003
by r_light 2 minutes ago
Comparing Best Chessmen Ever Stage I Sets
by cgrau 4 minutes ago
Mate In 7
by The_Riga_Magican 5 minutes ago
Shankland best US chess player.
by trotters64 7 minutes ago
Luck in Chess
by kleelof 11 minutes ago
GM SHANKLAND MATCH CHESS.COM ADVERTISEMENT
by BryPin 11 minutes ago
If you could go back.
by kleelof 12 minutes ago
What is the best response to 1.c4?
by chessmicky 13 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!