13507 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!
Ah OK, you should join Team England. http://www.chess.com/groups/home/team-england
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.
Not sure of his exact rating at the time but:
But look at the actual game, Rooperi asked for one where a 1300 could find the moves.
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.
"FIDE Grand Prix, Round 8 | Hosts: GMs Evgeny Miroshnichenko and Viorel Iordachescu"
5/22/2015 - Surya Ganguly - Emanuel Berg , Gibraltar, 2009
by G0GETTA 3 minutes ago
by Migilla 6 minutes ago
3 Queens - Is it going too far?
by BigLew 7 minutes ago
What areas of chess does blitz help you in?
by chessmicky 7 minutes ago
Hiarcs Chess Explorer
by jarrasch 9 minutes ago
Dealing with ..d5
by LoekBergman 17 minutes ago
Admins: Spam alert, you may wish to check this
by morgenstern70 32 minutes ago
The game should let you swear
by Alessandro170 35 minutes ago
by final_wars 45 minutes ago
Who Ever Invented Chess Made A Mistake
by DrFrank124c 54 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!