Well, yeah, most likely you will beat a person 300 points lower than you. But it's not a given, and it definitely happens where I lose or fail to beat a player 300 points lower -- more often I'll get into some trouble but manage to win anyway.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
So he even got a draw.
Blindfolded.
I really wish I could.
Irinasdaddy hat geschrieben:
Ok, let's tackle this one at a time:
Greedy, your online standard rating is above average. You still wouldn't beat a 2700 with pawn odds. You're not beating a 2700-rated player in a standard control game up a rook for a bishop. This thread is about someone rated 1300.
letsplaychess: first of all, if your argument includes infinity, you need a better argument. Second of all, a 1300-rated player KNOWS THE RULES, so they won't make sheerly random moves. They will use their flawed judgment. Finally, even if they DID make random moves, the 2700-rated player would make infinite NON-RANDOM moves, meaning that in the end, their judgment would STILL prevail. Infinity is a nice catch-all that people who don't understand statistics and probability try to use.
First of all, if you say that an argument which includes infinity is not good enough and do not explain why you need a better argument. Second of all, I did NOT say that a 1300 rated player does not know the rules of chess. My argument was that someone, also including 1300 rated players, could beat a 2700 rated player by doing random moves. You can not tell me that a 1300 rated player can not do random moves, they could even be rolling dices to totally eliminate their flawed judgement. Please tell me how using infinity in my argument makes me not understand statistics and probability. My argument was just an example and it does not even need infinity. If the person in my example would play just one time against the 2700 rated player, there would be a theoretical chance that a game is produced in which the 2700 rated player is losing, because of statistics and probability.
If the 1300 player is making moves randomly they "could" repeat some moves. If it was truly random they could play exactly the same game an infinite number of times...
We are assuming that both of the players are immortal.
Or at least that somehow neither of them can die until the 1300 has won a game.
Further that the 2700 would be willing to keep playing someone who's (potentially) lost infinity-1 games in a row.
That the 1300 has been rendered incapable of learning anything new (if they hit 1400 then it is no longer a contest between a 1300 and a 2700).
etc.
GreedyPawnEater hat geschrieben:
letsplaychess1996 wrote:
Irinasdaddy hat geschrieben:
Ok, let's tackle this one at a time:
Greedy, your online standard rating is above average. You still wouldn't beat a 2700 with pawn odds. You're not beating a 2700-rated player in a standard control game up a rook for a bishop. This thread is about someone rated 1300.
letsplaychess: first of all, if your argument includes infinity, you need a better argument. Second of all, a 1300-rated player KNOWS THE RULES, so they won't make sheerly random moves. They will use their flawed judgment. Finally, even if they DID make random moves, the 2700-rated player would make infinite NON-RANDOM moves, meaning that in the end, their judgment would STILL prevail. Infinity is a nice catch-all that people who don't understand statistics and probability try to use.
First of all, if you say that an argument which includes infinity is not good enough and do not explain why you need a better argument. Second of all, I did NOT say that a 1300 rated player does not know the rules of chess. My argument was that someone, also including 1300 rated players, could beat a 2700 rated player by doing random moves. You can not tell me that a 1300 rated player can not do random moves, they could even be rolling dices to totally eliminate their flawed judgement. Please tell me how using infinity in my argument makes me not understand statistics and probability. My argument was just an example and it does not even need infinity. If the person in my example would play just one time against the 2700 rated player, there would be a theoretical chance that a game is produced in which the 2700 rated player is losing, because of statistics and probability.
yes you are right and very good statistician. can you teach me?
Yes I am right, you should never question what people tell you.
GreedyPawnEater wrote:
not only there is a chance but the more games they play the bigger is the chance of the 1300 player beating the 2700. as number of games goes to infinity the chance goes to infinity. that's it sooner or later it will happen.
Your desperation to prove your point is almost as admirable as it is sad. I'm truly sorry that you actually have a good rating in blitz chess (although your correspondence rating is...questionable...) yet can not grasp simple logic and mathematics. If the 1300-rated player is rolling dice, then he's NOT PLAYING THE GAME. He's using an outside source to tell him what to do, which would be deemed cheating, and he'd be disqualified. The 1300-rated player, without improving significantly, and without outside aid, will attempt to play chess as well as he can at every opportunity. That WILL NEVER BE GOOD ENOUGH. No matter how many other inane attempts you make at proving your point, you are factually, logically, and realistically 100% wrong.
A million games is a few less than infinity... it seems the 1300's chances are improving! 
Irinasdaddy hat geschrieben:
GreedyPawnEater wrote:
not only there is a chance but the more games they play the bigger is the chance of the 1300 player beating the 2700. as number of games goes to infinity the chance goes to infinity. that's it sooner or later it will happen.
Your desperation to prove your point is almost as admirable as it is sad. I'm truly sorry that you actually have a good rating in blitz chess (although your correspondence rating is...questionable...) yet can not grasp simple logic and mathematics. If the 1300-rated player is rolling dice, then he's NOT PLAYING THE GAME. He's using an outside source to tell him what to do, which would be deemed cheating, and he'd be disqualified. The 1300-rated player, without improving significantly, and without outside aid, will attempt to play chess as well as he can at every opportunity. That WILL NEVER BE GOOD ENOUGH. No matter how many other inane attempts you make at proving your point, you are factually, logically, and realistically 100% wrong.
So you are saying that a 1300 rated player can not move a random piece to random square on each of his moves, because he is so much influenced by his chess knowledge and his flawed thinking?
GreedyPawnEater wrote:
dude seem you've never studied maths...anybody with IQ over 75 would tell you that the more games you play the bigger is your chance to win. if you play a million games you will surely win. it's basic mathematics that every 4rth grader can grasp
But this isn't a scenario in which raw statistics apply. Raw statistics would only work if one or both parties were moving completely randomly. But if they were doing that, then what is the point of the ratings? The rating shows how well someone plays, not how well they blindly toss figurines across a square slab. If both players are playing to the best of their ability, then statistics doesn't work because it doesn't account for learning. Each game, the two players will learn how their opponent plays. The 2700 player would probably figure out the 1300 player's play-style more quickly for fairly obvious reasons: the 2700 can think more moves ahead, and already knows more formal theory anyways. Compared to his, the 1300 player's stategies would be simplistic. This would mean that each successive game would widen the gap between the two players, reducing the 1300's "chances" with each game. If we assume the opposite happens (maybe the 1300 is prodigy who's only played two games before, idk) then the question falls apart. After a few games, he will have learned enough to be considered a 1400, then a 1500, etc. That's why statistics don't matter in this situation; the question revolves around the respective ratings of the players, and the ratings are reflections of skill, not chance.
Nah the chance is so low. The skill differnce is way too big, especially on a otb game. Chess is a slow game, the GM might make a mistake, but he will have plenty of time to recover. In fact the gm would still beat a 1300 when he will get a penalty of a rook down from the start.
In correspondence chess the lower rated player can analyse for ever with the board, trying to miminize his mistakes, but this is not possible in a otb game. Also psychology plays a big roll in otb game, your chances improve if you play an simulation vs a strong GM.
I won/draw some games against GMs(simulation otb), but in a real rated game(1v1) they will probably beat me like 99%+ with possible some lucky draws . Maybe if he is tired and like you he mightg give you a friendly draw for good play, but don't count on it ;)
Another big difference is a 2700 player is a real killer, you might meet some older GM's with 2350-2500 rating, who like to play slow positional chess and you might have a bigger chance, but a 2700? I don'tg believe it.
It would be different if the player had like a 1800+ rating, with and active winning position(peice up of winning attack), but still. Those top players are there for a reason, once they get into a worse/lost position(it happends everyone) they will do everything to change the position to their likings and try to confuse/trick you, they will complicate the game so you might make a mistake. In those positions those strong players really shine, they have experience in fighting untill the last end, forcing you to find the only winning moves, trying every trick/tactic to change the course of the game, a 1300 will have no chance imo.
There's a better chance of this thread going a month without a posting than a 1300 lasting* thirty moves against a 2700.
*If one player has a decisive advantage, I do not consider the other to have "lasted".
Can anyone (with a mathematics background) calculate the probability of this thread ending before a 1300 actually does* beat a 2700?
*Assuming that eternity will end first. 
I doubt a 1300 would ever do it EVER.
2700s are gods.
nah but i'm joking of course
Every fifty pages or so, it is helpful to point out to the noobs who fill this thread with nonsense that 2700+ players are the top fifty Grandmasters in the world. When they blunder, and they do, it stems from having been put under serious pressure for several hours by another 2700+ player. Such blunders most often concede an important square.
Conceding a square to a 1300 is about as inconsequential as dropping a bishop to a beginner who doesn't know how the horsey moves.
So which one is it lol -- a 9 move win or a 31 move win.
31 moves until I mated him, after 9 moves he was down a queen for a bishop, hence my comment about having him crushed after 9 moves, but him dragging it out instead of resigning. Shouldn't have needed that much clarification...
Perhaps clarification as to how this should be compared to other miniatures, for one thing -- is it "still a miniature" as classic 20 move miniatures because you deem some moves in your game "not important?" I ask because you gave the info. So I assumed there was some important thing you wanted us to get out of this, or else you would have just said you won in 30 some moves. But hey, maybe there wasn't, but it looked like there was :)
And even if it didn't need that much clarification, you still provided probably zero with that comment, since you merely repeated what you said before, so you still couldn't have provided enough of it :)
Yes, the point is that 1300-rated players flop all over the chessboard as soon as they encounter something they haven't seen before. I'm only rated 1600+ live, and there was no chance that I was losing that game after 9 moves. A 2700 is on a different planet than I am; we're not even playing the same game. The 1300 will never win.