Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #3041

    BMeck

    mcmodern wrote:
    BMeck wrote:
    mcmodern wrote:

    It is not impossible, but we will not see it for a long long time.

    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. 

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #3042

    richie_and_oprah

    BMeck wrote:
    mcmodern wrote:
    BMeck wrote:
    mcmodern wrote:

    It is not impossible, but we will not see it for a long long time.

    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. 

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #3043

    mcmodern

    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.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #3044

    BMeck

    mcmodern wrote:

    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.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #3045

    carsinio

    Did that diving guy break his neck?

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #3046

    didibrian

    A person rated 200 points higher than another person has around 75% of winning

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #3047

    didibrian

    So either 0.(25^-7) or 25^-7%

  • 11 hours ago · Quote · #3048

    tondeaf

    Yeah, not gonna happen

    thread*must*continue....

  • 9 hours ago · Quote · #3049

    OBIT

    didibrian: The math doesn't work like that.  We're dealing with bell curves. Chess ratings are designed to correspond to a normal bell curve with a standard deviation of 200 * √2, which is about 283.  A 1400 point rating difference would be about 4.95 standard deviations, giving the higher rated player a winning percentage of 99.999963%.  If they play 2.7 million games, the lower rated player can be expected to score one point.  (Of course, we are assuming the 1300 player continues to play like a 1300 player, not learning from the losses.)

    I don't think this is an unrealistic figure.  2.7 million is a big number, although we see numbers in the billions and trillions so much nowadays that 2.7 million doesn't sound that big.  Think about this, however: The odds of being dealt a royal flush in five-card poker is less than a million to 1.  When was the last time you were dealt a royal flush?   

  • 9 hours ago · Quote · #3050

    Charetter115

    Based on the elo formula the winning probabilty would be 0.000316%

  • 9 hours ago · Quote · #3051

    GreedyPawnEater

    The chance is significant. Every grandmaster blunders once in two games. If the 1300 player is good enough to punish the blunder the Gm will lose.

  • 9 hours ago · Quote · #3052

    17rileyc

    Charetter115 wrote:

    Based on the elo formula the winning probabilty would be 0.000316%

    Number too small. Not registering. Try 3.16 × 10^-4.

  • 7 hours ago · Quote · #3053

    DjonniDerevnja

    I do agree with GreedPawnEater. The chance is far higher than 0.000316 because the GM´s blunders more often than that. I expect at least one big blunder in 1000 games among average 2700. 

    But it is difficult to meet a GM in tournaments for a 1300. I guess it is necessary to beat a 1900 and a 2200 first, and then maybe meet the GM in the 3. round. To beat a 2200 it is circa necessary to have 1700+ real strenght (which is possible for a 1300 kid taking GM-lessons) 

  • 6 hours ago · Quote · #3054

    Joker-Jamal

    Yes of course!

  • 6 hours ago · Quote · #3055

    Charetter115

    We're not just talking about GMs. We're talking about 2700+. Much stronger than most GMs, and I doubt they are likely to blunder in such a way that they would lose to a 1300. It would have to be something completely ridiculous, because I think most people that level could beat a 1300 even a queen down, it'd have to be something like overlooking a mate in 1, which is almost unheard of.

  • 6 minutes ago · Quote · #3056

    Ziryab

    GreedyPawnEater wrote:

    The chance is significant. Every grandmaster blunders once in two games. If the 1300 player is good enough to punish the blunder the Gm will lose.

    2700+ GMs blunder less often. Every 1300 blunders an average of six times in twenty moves.


    GM blunders concede a vital square. 1300 blunders drop a piece. 

  • 2 minutes ago · Quote · #3057

    Jimmykay

    3 years and 3000 posts on this topic?

    Alexander Pope was correct:

    Hope spring eternal in the human breast.


Back to Top

Post your reply: