Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #941

    Scottrf

    Ah OK, you should join Team England. http://www.chess.com/groups/home/team-england

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #942

    rooperi

    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.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #943

    Scottrf

    Not sure of his exact rating at the time but:

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1069539

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #944

    Scottrf

    But look at the actual game, Rooperi asked for one where a 1300 could find the moves.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #945

    Elubas

    rooperi wrote:

    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.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #946

    SmyslovFan

    Elubas wrote:

    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?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #947

    Elubas

    I'm not sure on the number -- could be 1 in 10000, could be 1 in 1000000000000000.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #948

    solskytz

    Scottrf lol :-)

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #949

    solskytz

    Elubas probably something in between these two...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #950

    OldHastonian

    Bluebird1964 wrote:

    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.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #952

    Keith5005

    I really doubt this would happen often, but maybe as a miracle?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #953

    GrandePatzer

    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.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #954

    rooperi

    GrandePatzer wrote:

    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"

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #955

    Kingpatzer

    GrandePatzer wrote:

    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.

    Once the rating difference grows much beyond 400 points, the equations cease to be accurate predictors of observed outcomes. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #956

    SmyslovFan

    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:

    http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=73&view=article

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #957

    Kingpatzer

    Simuls aren't reated for a reason, FEDTEL ;)

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #958

    verybadbishop

    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!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #959

    Kingpatzer

    verybadbishop wrote:

    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? 

    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.

    Super duper bad mamma jamma grand master!

    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. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #960

    Elubas

    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.


Back to Top

Post your reply: