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

• 3 years ago · Quote · #161

Also, I don't see the point in calling it zero chance. There is a big difference between 0 and 0.000125, what is it you ask? Hope I say, a purpose for 1300 rated player to play harder and harder. What does 0 chance say? Just pack your things and leave, chess is for 2000+ only.

• 3 years ago · Quote · #162

.000125 is 1 in 8000? I don't believe a 1300 will win one in 8000 agains a gm.

There are 1500 GMs, about, i think. Many of them play regular simuls to earn cash, if they are not at the top level it's one of the few ways "lesser" gms can earn some cash. There must be 1000's of games of GM's playing low rates. If a 1300 wins, that game will go viral, everybody will know about it. But it's not happening...... and we're not even talking about games in tournament conditions.

• 3 years ago · Quote · #163
Tmattb86 wrote:

Dude_3 a.k.a the 10 year old kid who is correcting me.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my calculations! ... simply because I didn't make any. You are quite right though, my reasoning was flawed, the odds of tossing 100 heads are much greater than a random mover beating a GM. As I am a renowned genius, the only possible excuse would be that I was tired. :)

Of course, the difference being the number of available permutations. With a coin throw we have a 0.5 probability on each 'move' of hitting the  head, whereas we could estimate in every chess position there are on average around 30 bad moves which can be played, and maybe just a couple of moves of a high enough calibre to pose the GM a challenge.. i.e. a 0.07 probability on each move.

Maybe I should change the thing on my profile to say "uknown murderer"

The forum discussions would be a lot more interesting (Dude_3 aka the unkown murderer correcting me...)lol

• 3 years ago · Quote · #164
RetiFan wrote:
Beckyschess wrote:

This whole topic is just silly. Just because something is theoretically possible , it doesnt mean it can actually happen. It is theoretically possible to flip a coin 500 times in a row and have it come up heads each time. In reality entropy will reach maximum , the universe will go dark and end before something like this could happen.

If a 2700 player plays like a 2700 player there is no chance, none, zero, nada. Now if you want to suppose something silly like the 1300 player shoots the  2700 player and kills him in the middle of the game, then yeah the 1300 player will win.

If I was sleep deprived, drunk, distracted, not thinking clearly and generally off in the ozone, I still couldnt loose to a 1300 player and that is no disprespect to the 1300 player. Its kind of like all five foot six of me playing Lebron James in basketball and winning. Unless he gets hit by a bus forget about it.

Cheers, Becky

PS. im talking about otb games. Online doesnt count for diddly.

Unfortunately, let Tails be T and Heads be H:

I threw a coin 18 times. The sequence THTTHHTHHHTTHTHTTH, in this order, have 1/(2^18) chance of appearing, but this was what has happened! So I don't buy your explanation either.

Exactly.

It is like choosing a random number out of a bag of numbers -10000000000000000000000 through 10000000000000000000000, w. the decimals to the 15th place, and be surprised when you pick out something because "there is only an extremely small chance of getting this number ________!!!!!!!"

There is still chance, yet not likely.

• 3 years ago · Quote · #165

I think there is a chance.....said it before.....maybe the 2700 player is having a bad hair day!!!!    hahahahahaha

• 3 years ago · Quote · #166

Anand is rated around 2800, but he sporadically loses to players rated 2000 when ge gives simul exhibitions. But there's no way he'd lose to 1300, IMO... Even if he was playing without a queen to start with, he still should win.

• 3 years ago · Quote · #167
renumeratedfrog01 wrote:

Anand is rated around 2800, but he sporadically loses to players rated 2000 when ge gives simul exhibitions. But there's no way he'd lose to 1300, IMO... Even if he was playing without a queen to start with, he still should win.

+1

• 3 years ago · Quote · #168

The Universe is huge and old, and its only getting bigger and older. Anything that isn't strictly imposible has probably happened countless times already.

Our planet orbits a single star, our star is 1 in a billion in our galaxy. Our galaxy is 1 in a billion in the observable universe. These are a drunken man's rough estimations, but the point remains. If it is possible, it happens.

If an omniscient being had commented on the odds of this exact debate occuring in some far flung corner of the Universe countless millenia ago, he would have considered it close to zilch.

Look at us now.

• 3 years ago · Quote · #169

This discusstion is over, I've already written the huge 0'ed percent, want me to write it again?

Basically, you have a much better chance of living until you are 1000 than a 1300 beating a 2700 unless the 2700 is provisional or the 1300 is cheating.

• 3 years ago · Quote · #171
pfren wrote:

Sure, everything is possible. Gather 1,000,000 monkeys, let them play 7,000,000 times against Houdini, and it's absolutely sure they will checkmate him in 17 moves in one game.

18 moves I could see, 17 moves... Pffffttttt

• 3 years ago · Quote · #172

Surely one can do anything with his dedication and hardwork.

• 3 years ago · Quote · #173

In india a small 7 yrs old unrated child have defeated a GM. Superb na. And now he is rated 2234 at just 9 yrs.

• 3 years ago · Quote · #174

They were likely better than 1300 at unrated.

• 3 years ago · Quote · #175

Possible? yes.

the typical 1300 could not beat a typical gm though. Great question. I wonder things like that myself. :)

• 3 years ago · Quote · #177
RetiFan wrote:

There is a big difference between 0 and 0.000125

Only in mathematical terms. In practical chess terms there is no difference.

• 3 years ago · Quote · #178
Tmattb86 wrote:

Our planet orbits a single star, our star is 1 in a billion in our galaxy. Our galaxy is 1 in a billion in the observable universe.

Your estimates are a bit off. Our galaxy has somewhere between 200 billion and 400 billion stars, and the likely estimate of galaxies in the observable universe is close to the same number. The universe is around 13.75 billion years old, with an observable sphere diameter of close to 100 billion light years (expansion places galaxies much further away than we observe them).

• 3 years ago · Quote · #179
FirebrandX wrote:
Tmattb86 wrote:

Our planet orbits a single star, our star is 1 in a billion in our galaxy. Our galaxy is 1 in a billion in the observable universe.

Your estimates are a bit off. Our galaxy has somewhere between 200 billion and 400 billion stars, and the likely estimate of galaxies in the observable universe is close to the same number. The universe is around 13.75 billion years old, with an observable sphere diameter of close to 100 billion light years (expansion places galaxies much further away than we observe them).

Not to mention, our universe might be just on of a countless number of em.

• 3 years ago · Quote · #180

possible i am rated 389 JCL but i defeated a 800~ player in an OTB tournament today (not to mention that my rating is now probably above 400