15230 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?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
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!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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:
11/25/2015 - Cat And Mouse
by coolguy2007 a few minutes ago
by jjrehp a few minutes ago
Which Anti-Sicilian to choose?
by X_PLAYER_J_X 3 minutes ago
Black Friday deals
by kaynight 6 minutes ago
Bad bug in code?
by etc2000chess 9 minutes ago
beginner learning: How much do the details matter?
by coffeethyme 13 minutes ago
Proposal for a "Gentlemen" setting
by Steen008 19 minutes ago
by Martin_Stahl 24 minutes ago
want to get insulted for free ?
by DavidIreland3141 26 minutes ago
Refutation to the Ruy Lopez
by NajdorfPoisonedPawn 28 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!