Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1001

    PIRATCH

    Maybe in a simultanous game. Or as snowberg pointed out a new chess genius who just started on FIDE tournaments ... Laughing

    Would be quiet funny to see.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1002

    abdulmajidsayem1

    have patience buddy a player who is 2700 right now... was 1300 at some point of timeWink..........keep playing keep enjoying

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1003

    PIRATCH

    abdulmajidsayem1 wrote:

    have patience buddy a player who is 2700 right now... was 1300 at some point of time..........keep playing keep enjoying

    Not necessary! This 2700 player could as well be first rated at 1800. It depends on the rating rules of that country! Wink

    On a FIDE rated tournament with a performance you could easily be rated far above 2000 ELO! Laughing

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1004

    coolhandjohnnj

    Is there any chance that I could get Anne Hathaway to date me?

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1006

    ponz111

    he is still dreaming...

    Actually of course it is possible for a 1300 rate player to beat a 2700 rated player. [I mean that should be obvious]

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1007

    LCT10

    Everone is talking about the 2700 player making a blunder, but the 1300 player is more likely to blunder!

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1008

    blueemu

    I've beaten a 2400+ player.

    Of course, I beat him when he was a little kid... several years before he became a strong chess-player.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1009

    Elubas

    ponz, I'm surprised you have that super theoretical opinion (as I do) and yet you do seem to believe there is zero chance of saving certain positions (from our resign discussions)

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1010

    ponz111

    Yes, it is my wife, next to me. [ she is a very good wife!]

    Elubas, and I never said there is zero chance of saving those positions from our resign posts.  You seem to equate theoretically lost  or easy win or very easy win that a novice could do with zero or 100%

    Those position we discussed and taking into account who was playing them their best chance was that their opponent would die or be incapaciated or something like that and that is certainly not zero.

    Heck, lightening cood strike the superior side- so you will not catch me saying something is impossible.  Reread our conversations. 

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1011

    Elubas

    Or he could inattentively pull a Kramnik -- could.

    I think there is a youtube video somewhere (and I watched a tv program about this) that instructs you to do something like count the amount of dribbles and passes a group of four or five basketball players make. And then as you're doing that a guy dressed as a gorilla or something dances around for a few seconds in the middle of it all, and most people don't notice it because their brain is too focused on something else. (By the way, blocking things out is a good thing -- it's what makes us only pay attention to what is important, but it can sometimes lead to strange misses of obvious but unexpected things)

    Remember, this is a guy in a gorilla suit -- you can't get more distinct and obvious than that. But stuff like that can be missed just based on what your mind is paying attention to. You can miss obvious things if you're not looking for them. That kind of inattentive blunder that Petrosian and Kramnik made reminded me of that exercise -- they managed to play a huge blunder despite how much they, and any non-beginner, know better. That is a human factor and it can happen to anyone, no matter how rarely.

    That can apply to any position, even trivial ones, even allowing a beginner's stalemate when you are up tons of material -- that may not happen in most chess player's lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it is simply impossible.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1012

    Elubas

    lol, george something.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1013

    Ubik42

    You can figure out mathematically what the chance to win is using the rating differential chart. Of course it is a small number, but it is not zero. 

    There is no force that physically prevents the 1300 from choosing the best move in a position (even for the wrong reasons). And nothing prevents the GM from blundering, even repeatedly. 

     

    Even .0001% means they just need to play 10,000 games and the 1300 will come away with a win. Winning 10,000 games in a row is a pretty tall order, no matter what your rating is. If you dont like .0001%, then how about .00001%?

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1014

    SmyslovFan

    I did see an 800 player beat a master once. It was in a junior tournament. The master dropped a piece in the first ten moves or so and resigned. I'll see if I can dig it up. It's in chessbase.

    But I think the ratings in that game were provisional. I'll see if I can find it.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1015

    Elubas

    lol, why on earth would he resign in that situation? I actually posted a topic asking if you would accept a draw offered by an 800 if you were down a piece against him. The purist in me wanted to take a draw, but now, I don't know what I would do. Houdini could probably beat me a piece down, so why can't I beat an 800 Tongue Out

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1016

    Ubik42

    SmyslovFan wrote:

    I did see an 800 player beat a master once. It was in a junior tournament. The master dropped a piece in the first ten moves or so and resigned. I'll see if I can dig it up. It's in chessbase.

    But I think the ratings in that game were provisional. I'll see if I can find it.

    Mama Ubik taught all the little Ubiks never to resign against a player below 1000.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1017

    cartmankyle

    I've carefully read all the above comments and balanced them
    objectively. After long deliberation by the midnight oil and
    conference with my colleagues and experts in the field, I've arrived
    at the following conclusion: Lollerskates.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1018

    rooperi

    For a long time my best win here was against a 2105, he lost a piece and resigned on move 7. I dont know if I could have won if he played on.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1019

    FirebrandX

    Ubik42 wrote:

    Even .0001% means they just need to play 10,000 games and the 1300 will come away with a win. Winning 10,000 games in a row is a pretty tall order, no matter what your rating is. If you dont like .0001%, then how about .00001%?

    I can personally attest to this. I remember when I first hit 1700, I participated in an experiment by playing a 1300 a marathon of 50 games at time control of 10 minutes per game. My score after we finished was 49 wins and 1 loss, and believe me I was pissed off about that loss. Not only did I blunder a piece, but the 1300 played the most precise moves to take advantage of being up a piece. I had snuck out of losing positions against him in other games, but he was on target that game.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1020

    Estragon

    Ubik42 wrote:

    You can figure out mathematically what the chance to win is using the rating differential chart. Of course it is a small number, but it is not zero. 

    There is no force that physically prevents the 1300 from choosing the best move in a position (even for the wrong reasons). And nothing prevents the GM from blundering, even repeatedly. 

     

    Even .0001% means they just need to play 10,000 games and the 1300 will come away with a win. Winning 10,000 games in a row is a pretty tall order, no matter what your rating is. If you dont like .0001%, then how about .00001%?

     

    A couple of points statistically speaking:  first, there is no real way to measure the chance of a 1300 beating anyone over 1700.  The chance is as close to zero as it can get at that point (in Elo system), so it is not correct to assume there is "less" of a chance for someone three times the maximum deviation.

    And in those maximum+ cases, there is only a "theoretical" chance; it is so low it won't actually happen.  The number of games is not a real thing; the astronomical odds are the same for each individual game.

    Remember, this isn't a contest of blitz or rapid games, the original question concerned classical chess games. 

     

    Perhaps the clearest illustration of this is that it has never happened and, in the real world, it will never happen. 


Back to Top

Post your reply: