18103 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!
It is not impossible, but we will not see it for a long long time.
It could happen today, and again tomorrow. But once in a million years still beats the odds.
That does not make any sense. What would account for the average strength of a 1300 increasing while the average strength of a 2700 decreasing over time?
What I mean is that if you try say for a trillion times, you might hit that one time. This event has a probability of > 0, so if you try enough, it will happen, it just won't happen anytime soon.
Anything is, theoretically, possible when it comes down to it. But saying it wont happen for a long time still doesnt make sense. The games are independent of one another. Given the problem, the 1300 has the same probability to win the first game that he or she does the billionth.
Except in chess, the single event (a game) allows people to gain knowledge and thus does affect future probabilities. So, if 1300 keeps playing 2700 their odds of winning increase because their info increases. Random number theory does not apply.
So, if 1300 keeps playing 2700 their odds of winning increase because their info increases.
Umm in that case, they would not be 1300 anymore right? 1300 is a relative strength, if the player knowledge improves, they would not be 1300. The best chance for this to happen would be some very young and talented player, who is very under rated, maybe someone like Magnus or Wei Yi when they are about 8 or 9 or maybe even younger, but are rated 1300. I know Wei Yi played in Chinese pro league when was 8 or 9, so he was not 1300 at that age.
"1300 is a relative strength, if the player knowledge improves, they would not be 1300."
That is what I meant by "Given the problem." Earlier in the thread (I dont expect to read it) we settled on the 1300 player being a true 1300. Meaning his or her playing strength is always 1300.
Did that diving guy break his neck?
A person rated 200 points higher than another person has around 75% of winning
So either 0.(25^-7) or 25^-7%
Is it cheating to use youtube during games?
by sarkhon a few minutes ago
Best Chess.com members.
by egoole a few minutes ago
In a few years from now everbody will play either 1.d4 or 1. c4
by Charetter115 120 seconds ago
Got DESTROYED by this opening by black. What's it called?
by Diakonia 6 minutes ago
I have a few questions in this game.
by KingMeTaco666 7 minutes ago
by Charetter115 9 minutes ago
Post your best miniatures here
by Barefoot_Player 10 minutes ago
Why some players are highly overrated?
by JamieDelarosa 11 minutes ago
Chess Tactics 2015 - III (6 puzzles)
by nobodicos 14 minutes ago
How many people think that; Chess is just a Total Waste of Time in Life!
by Batman-Bin-Superman 15 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!