11538 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!
Find all games where 2700+'s lost. Including overlooked mates. queen blunders etc.
Could a 1300 realistically have put together any of the winning games?
If so, show me.
With quadrillions of "tries," possibly. Otherwise, no.
All of the above are great reasons why the chance would be extremely low -- I don't disagree these put the odds laughably against the 1300; I'm just saying that this doesn't mean zero chance. Let's say there is a 1 in 10000 chance the 1300 reaches the Gelfand position or something of the same level of advantage for white. And even here, we'll say that it's extremely unlikely that the 1300 will even win that. However, if he has even a 1 in 5000 chance of winning that position, something, then eventually, the 1 in 5 million shot may occur with enough tries.
Of course, this comes with the assumption that both components, the scenarios I have marked 1 in 10000 and 1 in 5000, are possible -- that's what I believe, for reasons given in earlier posts. If that is the case, then they simply have to both occur at the same time for the upset to happen, represented above.
What changed? Now you agree it won't happen?
I'm not sure on the number -- could be 1 in 10000, could be 1 in 1000000000000000.
Scottrf lol :-)
Elubas probably something in between these two...
I had not seen that game before, what was Karpov thinking about? Guess you would have to ask him.
Apparently it was a 'blindfold' game.
Estimating probabilities above 90% and below 10% are very difficult for people in general.
I really doubt this would happen often, but maybe as a miracle?
So many posts, so little information. The answer is yes. There is about 0.032% chance of a 1300 player beating a 2700 player.
That's roughly a one-in-3000 chance, which is a whole lot better than any state lottery (thousands of times better!) and even better than your chances of getting a four-of-a-kind in 5-card-stud poker (which is about 1/4,000), much less a royal flush (which is much worse, at 1/650,000).For reference and information on how to make these calculations yourself, look up "Elo Rating System" on wikipedia.
There's a whole bunch of better information than "look in wikipedia"
Once the rating difference grows much beyond 400 points, the equations cease to be accurate predictors of observed outcomes.
According to FIDE, if the difference between two player's ratings is 677, the stronger player has 99% chance of winning
If difference is 800, the chance of winning is, for all intents and purposes, 100%.
Here's a link to their handbook with the relevant table:
Simuls aren't reated for a reason, FEDTEL ;)
Here's what I don't like about the rating system:
If Magnus has the highest rating of all time, does that mean he's the greatest of all time, or the greatest among his generation? I think the rating itself is more a relative term than an absolute figure, so comparing players at their peaks based on rating isn't worthwhile. If you get right down to it, the rating system is flawed when you put it that way. I suspect the number will keep inflating, and the potential expansion of GM titles is indefinite.
Super duper bad mamma jamma grand master!
If Magnus has the highest rating of all time, does that mean he's the greatest of all time, or the greatest among his generation?
No. Ratings are relative only to the rating pool in which they are established.
I think the rating itself is more a relative term than an absolute figure, so comparing players at their peaks based on rating isn't worthwhile.
However, comparing players to their peers based on relative difference in strength does translate moderately well across eras. That's why Fischer's rating dominance of over 100 points above Spassky is really still more significant than Kasparov or Carlsen's achievements.
If you get right down to it, the rating system is flawed when you put it that way. I suspect the number will keep inflating, and the potential expansion of GM titles is indefinite.
The rating system isn't flawed, it simply isn't meant to give one an historical ranking of players across eras. That's like saying a refridgerator if flawed if it isn't also a TV. While it might be a great idea, it isn't a flaw that it lacks that feature. Rather, it simply means it wasn't designed that way.
Just because Carlsen's rating is relative to his player pool, doesn't mean his rating is necessarily inflated compared to other generations. It could mean that, but not necessarily.
If rating inflation is real, it definitionally means precisely that, since rating is a reflection of performance, and if his rating is not inflated with regard to a prior era, but the rest of the pool is experiencing rating inflation, then his rating would be higher as his performance would be even better than it has been since he should be scoring better against the opposition than he is. Or perhaps more simply: ratings are calculated relative to one's opponents. If rating inflation is real, then Carlsen's rating has been calculated based on inflated values. This means his rating must be inflated as the inputs to the formula are infalted. It should be noted that there isn't universal agreement that rating inflation is real, or that if it is real, how big an impact it actually has.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your post, but your first sentence is like saying "If A is real, then A must be real." Yes, but I'm not presupposing that A (inflation) is real. I am suggesting the possibility that his rating might be higher not because of inflation, but because of an increase in quality.
Of course, something that would prove rating inflation would be proving that the quality of Carlsen's moves are the same as of a previous generation, even with a higher rating. Some studies have shown that the intrinsic quality of the moves, not just rating, has gone up in general.
Agreed. I think that the middle ground is actually the real story. There is rating inflation, but I think the effect and impact is over-stated. The real big differentiator isn't rating inflation, but the ubiquitousness of computer-assisted training, the quality of the engines and the databases, and the fact that there is a strong pool of still improving players at the top. But I think the evidence for rating inflation is there as well, and I don't think it is easily ignored either.
why? do you mean that masters don't play seriously? I know that they may allow a draw sometimes just to finish the games and go back home, but a loss? I think that's too much for them
Lets say GM is 2700, playing a simul against 60 people who average at 1200. Then lets say GM spends 15 seconds per move, making each turn 15 minutes long for the kids. This is a huge time penalty for GM. I once heard that the average game is considered 40 moves. If all of the games go for 40 turns, this means the games last 10 hours, making it 10 minutes for the GM. Whether the game draws or someone wins, the GM just cut his time down by 15 seconds per turn.
As you can see, with this simple hypothetical, this encourages GM to knock out as many of the kids as possible. The weaker kids go first, either by a quick defeat or GM doesn't want to fight and offers a draw. Then he gets some more time to deal with the more challenging players, but since he rushed the games, he might find himself to be up a certain creek without a paddle. This is what leads to his losess.
I think this situation says that simul games shouldn't be rated. Everytime GM draws against one of the kids, he loses hundreds of points. GM would never do simuls, then, since the rating loss wouldn't be worth the money. Of course, GM could just be paid for their 10 hours of work, which would cost a lot more money and therefore no one will fund the simuls. Who wants to do 10 hours straight chess, either?
If Capablanca played Carlsen for the world champion match, who would win?
by Apotek a few minutes ago
eare Grandmasters obligated by law to coach?
by TacoTornado a few minutes ago
Guess the game # 1
by MANGLECOPTER 2 minutes ago
Can anyone defeat me?
by JJZ03 10 minutes ago
7/2/2015 - Mate in 5
by logicwizard 11 minutes ago
by amilton542 14 minutes ago
blitz/bullet rating is the only thing that matters in internet chess
by SmyslovFan 14 minutes ago
Your first memory of chess ...
by ilikecapablanca 16 minutes ago
When a coward refuses to resign.......
by captnding123 17 minutes ago
Should chess be considered a sport?
by captnding123 20 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!