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

It doesn't matter what you or others argue. It matters how I feel. When I imagine a 1300 player winning, it doesn't feel right.

Because this is as intensive as any time I've ever explored a new idea, it's my considered opinion that I've given this matter great thought, and my feeling is that you cannot refute me!

Actually, it is well established that there is a 0.0000 chanch, zilch, a big fat 0 chanch a 100 could win vs a 3000 where extended circumstances such as death did not exist. Take that and shove it, all you "Anything is possible" advocates. There is but 1 reality that exists in this space and time, not multiple universes where infinite possibilities appear out of nowhere. You'd be better suited amoung string theorists who argue 9 vs 11 dimensions. Now there's a crock.

I agree with Ziryab. Not only are +2700s much stronger than 1900s, they are also far more consistent.

Be honest here. Was the mathematics studied 1st? After exhaustive research and practical application, was the conclusion reached "the math proves to me anything is possible"

Or... was a hypothesis made 1st "Anything is possible " and selective mathematics was then applied to prove your conjecture?

See where this is coming from?

No one can dispute, given an infinite amount of time and infinite attempts, anything is possible. Of course mathematics easily proves this.

But get this, as shocking as it may be,

A Monkey will never type Shakespeare. Not now and not after hell freezes over.

"Well established" of course meaning "how I feel about it."

If a 1300 plays as we expect as 1300 to play vs a 2700 playing the way we expect a 2700 to play, then of course the 1300 will lose every game. No question. As Elubas pointed out, if a 1300 ever did win, we would dismiss it as something akin to the ratings were not correct because in our minds we define these players by their performance.

Humans are not perfectly consistent though. 1300s and 2700 alike do not always play as expected.

The topic is a bit silly I have to admit. Practically speaking, it's hardly a question even worth considering. But from a thought experiment standpoint it offers some fun. It's been shown that super GMs are capable of blundering mate in 1. Infinite universes and heart attacks were not necessary.

To paraphrase one highly rated player: "my rating can't protect me from what's happening on the board!"

I don't think solutions / conclusions are ever given as sweeping generalizations.

There are usually plenty of stipulations in math or science. For example it may say:

a monkey will type Shakespeare when we assume:

1: blah blah blah about infinity
2: blah blah blah about randomness
3: blah blah blah about undying vampire monkeys

So it wouldn't so much be "I believe ____ will always happen when _____" it would be "Given that very specific assumptions are true, and under very specific conditions, the evidence / calculations show _____ (a very specific proposition) is ______ (true or false for example)"

Not speaking to you 011

but to all the proponents who suggest anything is possible. That is why I extended the conjecture to 100 vs 3000.

You on the other hand are level headed and see the fallacies in those arguements.

ok :)

i actually reason that the 100 ratd player would have a better chance then the 1300 rated player. The 1300 rated player has flawed thinking, but i think the 100 rated player doesn't think, and actually has the ability to play truelly random moves.

You should try playing a truly random-mover engine. It's a horrible experience. Almost every move, you say, "Now that's the stupidest move I've ever seen."

Since most legal moves are bad, the monkeys don't really have a chance. Nor does the 1300 player. For the 1300, bad moves are by design rather than chance.

Agreed, Ziryab. In any given position, there's about 30 legal moves. Of those 30, ~6 are reasonable. On the good news side of things, it's pretty rare that there's only one "best" move in any given position.

""Well established" of course meaning "how I feel about it.""

Yeah.

"Or... was a hypothesis made 1st "Anything is possible " and selective mathematics was then applied to prove your conjecture?"

Sure, I think the claim comes first, and the math represents it. So I'm actually not basing my conclusion on math. If you reject the philosophy behind the math then you are free to reject the math as well.

So in a sense this is a more philosophical issue. The math can just be used to represent which belief you have. But even philosophically, it does make sense to not rule things out. Because it would be biased to do so. To say that a 1 in a trillion chance is the same as zero is being biased against that one tiny (but conceivable) possibility, deciding to pretend it doesn't exist rather than acknowledge it for what it is. Pretending that there is a one in a trillion chance of being wrong is certainty is doing just that -- it's making a jump that isn't backed up. There is no reason to expect your case will be the one in a trillion exception... but then again, you can't decide that the one exception simply can't be this one. That's arbitrary. It's certainly not less likely that the exception will happen on the first try, rather than for example the 145690th try, or the trillionth try (and of course it could take longer than a trillion tries). So yes there will (or should) be this way in which your mind doesn't totally rule the unlikely situation out -- you will never get worried about it, but you don't think the universe simply disallows it.

"You on the other hand are level headed and see the fallacies in those arguements."

As if I wasn't aware of any counter-arguments until you brought them up :) Nothing you have said is something I haven't thought about before when looking at this issue. While your counter-arguments are reasonable, there seems to be perfectly adequate replies to them.

There is always the chance of your superGM opponent having an heartattack during your game which would cost him an otherwise won position but except from that the 2700 player will win every time they play for all eternity I'm afraid...

It's called a big upset

you write a lot. not a lot of people will really read this. i mean, come on!

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

Of course...just practice a lot for 10 years