10660 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!
I say if the 1300 just divorced, had no sleep, was sick, unconcentrated because someone kept throwing sand at him, blindfolded and played a game of cards at the same time. The 2700 might just stand a chance of winning.Or the 1300 would just lose equally bad.
Masters aren't that strong.
A friend told me that the ratings are set up so a 1000 player has a 1 in 10 chance of winning an 1100 player. So if this is correct a 1300 player would have a 1 in 100,000,000,000,000 chance. 1 in one hundred trillion. So your saying there is a chance! Also take into consideration that in playing that many games, which is not possible, your score would improve for sure.
What about the other 5 games?
Well I sure as hell can't, so nope.
You've got the ratings reversed.
I think he was being ironic.
I once played a player rated 1400 in a USCF-rated tournament game, blundered my Queen, ended up with King and three pawns vs King, Queen, and Bishop, and he offered me a draw when he had a forced checkmate available.
My biggest upset is beating a 2200 when I was rated 1280 or so (900+ points) in a rated tournament game.
your friend was mistaken
1 in 10? When I was 1600 I beat a guy who was 2200 and drew a 2100 in the same tournament.
Well, I Think that we have pritty much covered this topic.
A great achievement, but there's a 600 point and 500 point spread. The OP asks about a 1400 point spread. As x approaches zero and all that . . .
Hey wait ! It did happen ...right here.
Yes, there's a chance -- if the 2700-rated player is asleep, or in a strong charitable mode , or if the 1300-rated player is incorrectly rated (and really ought to be 2500+). Otherwise, the chance of a brick falling from the sky to hit your head is higher, so don't bet on it (if you want to keep your money, that is).
Yet again, it seems some people are confusing extremely low chance, with impossibility.
2700 > 2500
No. Some people misunderstand the limits of probability.
For instance, the common misconception that a million monkeys on a million keyboards for a million years would at some point produce the works of Shakespeare is pure rubbish. They might possibly produce in the process a couple of lines - if you don't count for line breaks or capitalization or punctuation. Random entries will not produce specific results.
You can get the 2700 player flying drunk and distract him with two lovely ladies, and he will still beat the 1300 player 100% of the time.
Statistics may provide a theoretical possibility which is infinitesimal, but that doesn't mean there is any practical chance it will occur. It's not a random matter, there is skill involved.
It's you who's misunderstanding probability, Estragon. The monkey thing is a case in point. It would probably take the monkeys longer than the age of the universe to re-create Shakespeare - but the fact of the matter is, since the probability of it occuring is non-zero, it will eventually happen. The odds of winning the lottery is about 1 in 14 million, yet people win it every week.
Tmb86: Please re-read Estragon's argument carefully. The essence of it is that Shakespeare and chess aren't subject to randomness -- rather, they are governed by skill. If it was all randomness (as is the case with lottery), then there's a small practical chance indeed.
But true randomness implies uniform probability distribution (i.e., the chance of one outcome is exactly the same as the chance of any other individual outcome). This is true about the lottery -- the chance of one number (or a set of numbers) coming up, given that we have no extra information, is exactly the same as the chance of any other number (or set of numbers).
However, this same argument cannot be applied with Shakespeare and chess -- because the chance of winning a game depends on executing a sequence of strong moves (at least stronger than your opponent's). While a single strong move here and there might just come up for the beginner, it won't suffice in the end for winning, because the game is cumulative, i.e., the moves are not independent the same way that the numbers in the lottery are.
So I suggest studying some probability theory first before commenting on the subject of it!
I'm kind of with estragon here. Just because there is a non-zero probability doesn't mean there is a 100% actuality.
The number of events (whatever probability) which will never occur is infinitely larger than the number of events which will.
"Reykjavik Open, Round 7 | Commentary by FM Ingvar Johannesson & Fiona Steil-Antoni"
3/9/2014 - Double Trouble
by AJOYHANDIQUE a few minutes ago
Is this position legal?
by chaotic_iak 3 minutes ago
by trakoz 5 minutes ago
Rate the avatar above - II ( The return)
by KenGeneQ 6 minutes ago
Problem while dragging pieces
by Kblavkalash 17 minutes ago
Making the Chess.com Forums Better
by ConnorMacleod_151 18 minutes ago
Last One to Post Is the Most Awesome
by mashanator 18 minutes ago
min rating -200, max rating +200
by rajnikant001 22 minutes ago
The King's Gambit
by najdorf96 37 minutes ago
Simultaneous exhibition with 100 players is ready! IN PROGRESS! :)
by rajnikant001 37 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!