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

• 6 weeks ago · Quote · #3081

If you say "is there any chance" the answer is yes, no matter how small, a chance is a chance. If you say reasonable winning chances, then I'd say no.

• 6 weeks ago · Quote · #3082

"Anyway, as I said, the math suggests this is true. That after a certain rating gap, skill isn't correlated with results."

Is there a study to which you're referring? That could be legitimate.

"And IMO common sense also suggests this is true."

But if what I'm saying is wrong, it's definitely not because I wasn't following common sense. When you know what goes into chess skill, accident prevention becomes a part of you, and this will not stop happening when you hit 2300. I could grant you that it's not easy to tell the difference between the accident prevention abilities of a 2300 vs a 2700, especially if you're much weaker than 2300, but that doesn't mean the differences aren't there.

• 6 weeks ago · Quote · #3083

Thinking about it, I think I have to agree with you that a 2700 player will be more consistent. I'll have to change my argument to the difference in consistency is so small that it does not measurably affect the results due to other factors having a comparatively overwhelming affect such as mood, motivation, physical health (even just a headache), etc.

This is why I say a particular (not all, just one) 2700 player may fare worse than a particular 2300 player.

• 6 weeks ago · Quote · #3084
Elubas wrote:

"Anyway, as I said, the math suggests this is true. That after a certain rating gap, skill isn't correlated with results."

Is there a study to which you're referring? That could be legitimate.

Ok... so mathematically, you would have to say they're always positively correlated. Increase rating difference, then increase expected score.

I was saying we could just make a guess based on the shape of the curve since the Elo formula isn't intended for very large differences. The shape being asymptotically approaching 100%.

My idea (guess) was that if you actually plotted data points and tested for correlation, that you wouldn't notice when the rating difference is very large because other factors would matter so much more.

• 6 weeks ago · Quote · #3085

Those quoting the .018 are correct. That is how many points a person rated 1500 pts lower in the Elo system is likely to score out of 100. But they make a mistake: In chess, it's possible to score points with draws. The chance of a person with an established rating 1500 pts lower beating the higher rated player is much lower.

Elo's rating table isn't equiped to work out the number of wins a person may get, just the overall probable score.

Suffice it to say that .018% is too optimistic.

So, when rounding, the correct answer to the question is

0 Chance out of 1,000, and probably 0 chance out of 10.000.

When you calculate the number of serious games that have ever been played between a 1300 and a 2700, the answer becomes:

Astronomically small.