Exactly btickler. If someone believes in infinite universes and infinite time that anything is possible, how can anyone dispute? Me, I live in reality.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
The chances are not infinitesimal for a random move generator because there are not an infinite number of possible games. Especially considering that a decent opponent will only ever play a very small fraction of all possible games.
Therefore you don't need infinite resources.
@btickler.. I edited my post. "You" was generic Meant to imply anyone.Was not directed at you personally.
Your arguments are better presented than mine.
mdinnerspace wrote:
@btickler.. I edited my post. "You" was generic Meant to imply anyone.Was not directed at you personally.
Gotcha...I removed my post.
arcaneterrain wrote:
So I beat a GM at 3 2 one day in around 20 moves. He is a 2400 player and I am Class A.
This inane thread died finally, until this @#$% brought it back to life with an irrelevant comment. His account should be closed.
Hmmm! Is it possible for anyone to get a negative rating?
If so would a player with a -100 rating have a better or worse chance of beating a 1300 than a 1300 would have of beating a 2700?
Let's assume that the -100 is trying to win and is just terrible (rather than a cheat who is deliberately trying to lose every game they play... that would require diabolical cunning - I mean, to mask that they were deliberately losing).
Surely it would be easier for them (a -100) to play random moves than a 1300?
Murgen wrote:
Hmmm! Is it possible for anyone to get a negative rating?
If so would a player with a -100 rating have a better or worse chance of beating a 1300 than a 1300 would have of beating a 2700?
Let's assume that the -100 is trying to win and is just terrible (rather than a cheat who is deliberately trying to lose every game they play... that would require diabolical cunning - I mean, to mask that they were deliberately losing).
Surely it would be easier for them (a -100) to play random moves than a 1300?
not untracking this thread is not unlike taking a hammer and bashing your own skull with it until you die.
I think I am going to keep saying that until this thread dies.
btickler wrote:
mdinnerspace wrote:
Carlson could break up with his girlfriend, his mother pass on, show up drunk as a skunk, in his pajamas after no sleep for 2 days, hang his Queen and never lose to a 1300.
Not the point, I have already said that won't happen, in this very thread, and a long time before you ever came along, I might add. The point was that your running example is flawed and unuseful in this discussion for furthering the side we both agree on...no more, no less.
not untracking this thread is not unlike taking a hammer and bashing your own skull with it until you die.
skotheim2 wrote:
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!
not untracking this thread is not unlike taking a hammer and bashing your own skull with it until you die.
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Cavatine wrote:
Did anybody mention yet that even a 2800 or 2900 player can sometimes lose a game by not realizing what is the correct time control for the tournament It has to be shown that a 1300 player can get into the tournament somehow. I wonder if there are any circumstances where a GM can send a daughter or son into the tournament as a delegate.
Politiken cup in Denmark is an open tournament where 2700 and 1300 plays in the same class. The number one rated on the startlist is at 2720, number 299 is rated 1141. There are unrated players too.
http://www.ksu.dk/politiken_cup/turnering/deltagere.aspx?tur_id=1413&land_dist=1&rat_dist=1&titel_dist=1&aar=2015
not untracking this thread is not unlike taking a hammer and bashing your own skull with it until you die.
Bonny-Rotten wrote:
An arbiter could forfeit the 2700 for writing notes like .... "Keep calm, this noob is only 1300, watch your clock and try not to make any serious blunders".
not untracking this thread is not unlike taking a hammer and bashing your own skull with it until you die.
btickler wrote:
mauve_penguin wrote:
RetiFan wrote:
Of course, I'm talking about games when both players want to win.
I also don't buy %0 percent chance, because I think I can get a win against a Boris Gelfand type blunder.
see FaceBook's(the member) win against FM kulinarist. FaceBook is 1300 and FM Kulinarist is 2700
You mean the FM Kulinarist recently banned for cheating and this 1300 who is also obviously cheating?
not untracking this thread is not unlike taking a hammer and bashing your own skull with it until you die.
RetiFan wrote:
Of course, I'm talking about games when both players want to win.
I also don't buy %0 percent chance, because I think I can get a win against a Boris Gelfand type blunder.
not untracking this thread is not unlike taking a hammer and bashing your own skull with it until you die.
No, not unless the 2700 player is blind drunk or the 1300 player is cheating
Why Not?!
The 2700 rated player is still a human after all and make mistakes ! , YES it's a very small percent that he makes such a mistake but it's possible!
So in my opinion, It's a small percentage that in such a game, the top rated player make some mistakes , followed by a very small percentage that the lower rated player uses these mistakes as an advantage to complete the game with no mistakes and WIN, But still there is a chance after all to WIN!
Ahmed_Amr wrote:
Why Not?!
The 2700 rated player is still a human after all and make mistakes ! , YES it's a very small percent that he makes such a mistake but it's possible!
So in my opinion, It's a small percentage that in such a game, the top rated player make some mistakes , followed by a very small percentage that the lower rated player uses these mistakes as an advantage to complete the game with no mistakes and WIN, But still there is a chance after all to WIN!
not untracking this thread is not unlike taking a hammer and bashing your own skull with it until you die.
techinicly speaking, if you teach a monkey to move the pieces in the correct fashion, there is a Miniscle chance the monkey will guess the right move and beat carlsen.
Ummm, you are mixing up the idea of an infinite number of monkey typing on a keyboard randomly producing a Shakespeare play with this topic. There is zero chance of a single trained monkey playing a serial progression of games against Carlsen winning a game, ever. The whole point of the monkeys typing Shakespeare argument is to show how incredibly large infinity actually is, not to say that monkeys can beat humans in any realistic scenario...not even with a "miniscule" chance.
okay mr. smart guy, what ever. How about two computers play each other forever, and one is 2700 elo and the other is a computer that generates completely random moves. The latter will beat the former eventually. is that good enough?
No, because it's not possible for a rated human to make random moves when they're taking the game seriously. The set of moves they're capable of playing should be well defined, and it is possible that even in every combination the 1300 will lose even if infinite games were played.