Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 26 hours ago · Quote · #3061

    Thomas9400

    maybe if the 2700 player has his eyes shut and its a 960 game :P

  • 25 hours ago · Quote · #3062

    GreedyPawnEater

    The chance is about 1 in 2000. Let's proof it with the help of elementary math. If you go through the games of the greatest players ever Karpov and Kasparov they have blundered a piece once per 1000 games. The probability that the 1300 player will punish Karpov and Kasparov for dropping a piece is 0.5 given that they have blundered. So the probability that a 1300 player can beat Karpov or Kasparov is 1 divided by 2000. It's not very small number.

  • 24 hours ago · Quote · #3063

    badatthegame

    GreedyPawnEater wrote:

    The chance is about 1 in 2000. Let's proof it with the help of elementary math. If you go through the games of the greatest players ever Karpov and Kasparov they have blundered a piece once per 1000 games. The probability that the 1300 player will punish Karpov and Kasparov for dropping a piece is 0.5 given that they have blundered. So the probability that a 1300 player can beat Karpov or Kasparov is 1 divided by 2000. It's not very small number.

    I don't think so.

    First, I think, with a piece down a 2700 rated player still has a much higher winchance than 0.5 vs a 1300 rated. More like 0.95.

    Second, human tend to make those errors more likely when under pressure and a 1300 rated player wont pressure a 2700 enough.

  • 23 hours ago · Quote · #3064

    diamondpawn1

    DjonniDerevnja wrote: What does FIDE stand for?
    BMeck wrote:
    DjonniDerevnja wrote:
    OBIT wrote:

    Elubas: In regards to the monkey, you are correct.  To put this in chess terms, if an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, some of them will beat him.  Well, actually that's an incorrect statement - to be accurate, an infinite number of monkeys will beat him.  Both the number of games played and the number of games won by the monkeys are "countable infinities," you see...

     

    The point to understand is this: when you play chess, all the moves are right there in front of you.  If you happen to pick the right ones (even if you know nothing about chess strategy and just make random moves), you too can play like a grandmaster.  Given that, the odds of the stronger player winning is never 100%.   

    In a 50 move game A lot of 1300`s plays maybe 45 moves as a GM now and then, and maybe 4 inaccuracies and one bad move. In such games they will loose.

    A Gm usually plays 50 or 49, og maybe 48 moves as a GM.

    In his best games the 1300 have more Gm-like moves.

    This is of course based on empty guesswork, and might not be true at all, but I can see from chess.com computeranalyze that in my best game when I was close to 1300 fide (which I have never been, my first rating was 1422), that ther were only two inaccuracies, and those two was the moves leading to a victorious line.

    But that wasnt against a GM. The GM made me move bad. He pushed so hard that I played out of balance. It is much easier to play clean games against normal strenght players.

    That is absolutely not true. GMs consistently make the first or second "best" move. A 1300 comes no where close. Take any 1300 level game on here and let houdini analyze it and you will see what I mean. When I say this, I mean when the game leaves book as well

    Maybe you are right, but we are talking about 1300 Fide, which is ca the same strenght as 1500 online. I can see absolutely beautiful chess from 9 year old kids in my club, but they never where 1300 fide, they jumped to 1420-1450 the first time they got fiderating. Those kids can take down a-A-class players, but they must win advantage before the endgame. The masters are usually better in the endgame. And of course, one of those kids , Andreas Tenold, did beat a GM in simultan. The other won drew if I remember right. That draw was either real, or the Gm might have been kind to the little girl.

  • 23 hours ago · Quote · #3065

    diamondpawn1

    What does FIDE stand for?

  • 22 hours ago · Quote · #3066

    Jimmykay

    diamondpawn1 wrote:

    What does FIDE stand for?

    Let me google that for you!

  • 21 hours ago · Quote · #3067

    DjonniDerevnja

    diamondpawn1 wrote:

    What does FIDE stand for?

    When I talk about rating, there are several scales for diferent environments. FIDE-rating is international rating for tournaments reporting to FIDE. There are national ratings too, sush as Norwegian ELO, Danish ELO, and a lot more.

    https://www.fide.com/ 

  • 20 hours ago · Quote · #3069

    skotheim2

    Hey reb i only went up 100 points of FIDE in my last two tourneys, making my rating around 1900. But it shows that blitz also helps!

  • 18 hours ago · Quote · #3070

    GreedyPawnEater

    badatthegame wrote:
    GreedyPawnEater wrote:

    The chance is about 1 in 2000. Let's proof it with the help of elementary math. If you go through the games of the greatest players ever Karpov and Kasparov they have blundered a piece once per 1000 games. The probability that the 1300 player will punish Karpov and Kasparov for dropping a piece is 0.5 given that they have blundered. So the probability that a 1300 player can beat Karpov or Kasparov is 1 divided by 2000. It's not very small number.

    I don't think so.

    First, I think, with a piece down a 2700 rated player still has a much higher winchance than 0.5 vs a 1300 rated. More like 0.95.

    Second, human tend to make those errors more likely when under pressure and a 1300 rated player wont pressure a 2700 enough.

    2700 player cant beat a strong 1300 player being a piece down. The 1300 player will simplify the position and win. It's easy. Anybody can do it.

  • 18 hours ago · Quote · #3071

    davestinks

    NEVER IN A BILLION YEARS

  • 18 hours ago · Quote · #3072

    GreedyPawnEater

    Actually, even my estimation of 1 per 2000 games is not very precise since we know from experience that in simuls grandmasters lose very often against patzers. So we can safely say that the chance of 1300 player beating a 2700 players is AT LEAST 1 in 2000 games.

  • 17 hours ago · Quote · #3073

    jackfast

    davestinks wrote:

    NEVER IN A BILLION YEARS

    The GM would die in a billion years but so would the patzer. If the time control was about 2 years per move and if the patzer was younger than the GM. There is a very likely chance that the GM would have to forfeit if the patzer could prolong the game to about 40 moves or more.

  • 17 hours ago · Quote · #3074

    Elubas

    badatthegame wrote:
    GreedyPawnEater wrote:

    The chance is about 1 in 2000. Let's proof it with the help of elementary math. If you go through the games of the greatest players ever Karpov and Kasparov they have blundered a piece once per 1000 games. The probability that the 1300 player will punish Karpov and Kasparov for dropping a piece is 0.5 given that they have blundered. So the probability that a 1300 player can beat Karpov or Kasparov is 1 divided by 2000. It's not very small number.

    Second, human tend to make those errors more likely when under pressure and a 1300 rated player wont pressure a 2700 enough.

    Yes this is a valid point. When your position is bad, it gets harder to find moves that don't blunder. So even in the rare cases where a 2700 makes an elementary mistake, it's mainly because of the stress of playing another 2700 player.


Back to Top

Post your reply: