Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 23 months ago · Quote · #521

    AndyClifton

    And those odds would be...?

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #522

    solskytz

    Actually this may be playable or even winnable for the one with the pieces...

    I think about sacrificing a bunch of pieces on one side (like, the a-b file area), then penetrating with a Queen and a rook (maybe two, if two are left) to just checkmate the king... the pawns are slow and won't do much damage - but it depends how long it takes to actually arrange the pieces for these sacs... an interesting question after all

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #523

    ClavierCavalier

    solskytz wrote:

    looks like we have more shared interests than just chess... check out www.youtube.com/user/solskytz.

     

    Rhapsody in Blue is always nice.  Better with an orchestra, of course.  One of those few "concertos" that gets played solo.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #524

    ClavierCavalier

    I think one of the real problems with this is that a GM can see much further than a 1300, which is why they make better positional moves.  The 1300 could even make a move that looks perfect but the GM can quickly see a 13 turn tactic that destroys them.

    I think the easiest answer is to say that the 1300 has a chance to beat the GM but its implausible.  Sure, the GM could die a few turns into it, or the 1300 could be Bobby Fischer who never played a rated game since getting to 1300.  Maybe the 1300 is a hustler who purposely keeps their rating low.  Maybe the GM is the hustler who purposely loses the first game and then bets a huge sum of money on the second?  Oh, maybe the 1300 is a super intelligent alien chess genius and it's their first chess game?

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #525

    erikido23

    ClavierCavalier wrote:

    I think one of the real problems with this is that a GM can see much further than a 1300, which is why they make better positional moves.  The 1300 could even make a move that looks perfect but the GM can quickly see a 13 turn tactic that destroys them.

    I think the easiest answer is to say that the 1300 has a chance to beat the GM but its implausible.  Sure, the GM could die a few turns into it, or the 1300 could be Bobby Fischer who never played a rated game since getting to 1300.  Maybe the 1300 is a hustler who purposely keeps their rating low.  Maybe the GM is the hustler who purposely loses the first game and then bets a huge sum of money on the second?  Oh, maybe the 1300 is a super intelligent alien chess genius and it's their first chess game?

    I think one of the problems is that the gm sees much farther than the amateur, understands positional chess much better, doesn't blunder near as much and the blunders are of a much more "minor" nature, knows the basic mating patterns, knows basic endgames, knows typical middlegame plans, and understands what good and bad pieces are, knows what good and bad pawn structures are and how they relate to the pieces are...But, that is just about it.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #526

    MrProfit

    I agree completely erikido23 and everything you just stated is why it would never happen.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #527

    WalangAlam

    Anytime actually. It depends on the game they are playing. If the 1300 rated player is a professional athlete in any sports like basketball, tennis, badminton, table tennis, wrestling, mma, golf, etc and plays the 2700 rated master in his profession instead of chess, the 2700 rated master is beaten everytime. Just try to imagine a 1300 rated professional boxer fights a 2700 rated master in a boxing ring.! Lights out!

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #528

    madhacker

    Okay, so here's an extension question. What rating *would* you need to be to have a cat's chance in hell against a 2700 GM in a one-off game?

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #529

    Tmb86

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #530

    Estragon

    erikido23 wrote:
    ClavierCavalier wrote:

    I think one of the real problems with this is that a GM can see much further than a 1300, which is why they make better positional moves.  The 1300 could even make a move that looks perfect but the GM can quickly see a 13 turn tactic that destroys them.

    I think the easiest answer is to say that the 1300 has a chance to beat the GM but its implausible.  Sure, the GM could die a few turns into it, or the 1300 could be Bobby Fischer who never played a rated game since getting to 1300.  Maybe the 1300 is a hustler who purposely keeps their rating low.  Maybe the GM is the hustler who purposely loses the first game and then bets a huge sum of money on the second?  Oh, maybe the 1300 is a super intelligent alien chess genius and it's their first chess game?

    I think one of the problems is that the gm sees much farther than the amateur, understands positional chess much better, doesn't blunder near as much and the blunders are of a much more "minor" nature, knows the basic mating patterns, knows basic endgames, knows typical middlegame plans, and understands what good and bad pieces are, knows what good and bad pawn structures are and how they relate to the pieces are...But, that is just about it.

    Agreed, and add to that the inability of the 1300 to effectively capitalize on any mistakes the 2700 did make along the way.

     

    Remember, ratings measure results, not "strength."  The maximum deviation of 350-400 points is the outer limit of probability for any result other than the higher rated player wins. 

    That's not based on some theoretical supposition, it's a statistical fact.  Beyond that rating difference - assuming as we must that both ratings are reasonably accurate - the chance of the lower rated player not losing approaches zero.  The only reason it isn't actually zero is due more to mathematical theory than chess practice. 

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #531

    DrFrank124c

    In chess anything is possible. When I was 11 years old I played chess against the US Checkers champion in a simultaneous chess and checker exhibition and I beat him. I was small for my age so I guess he wasn't paying any attention to me. The moral of the story is the tortoise can triumph over the hare if the hare falls asleep.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #532

    Scottrf

    Did he actually play chess? I could probably beat Lionel Messi or Tiger Woods in a game of chess.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #533

    eddysallin

    yea sure ! the 14/1500 points gap has little to do w/ experience and knowledge . the ability to 'see' the board and position will fail, and of course a "hung" queen will occur...being a gentlemen he will RESIGN- yea sure! a better shot is a medical condition and time runs out..

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #534

    madhacker

    @Tmb86, I was thinking 2200 if the 2700 is having a really bad day. But maybe you're right - 2300 is lower-end master level.

    In any case, a lot higher than 1300 Tongue Out

    Any other answers?

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #535

    erikido23

    Estragon wrote:
    erikido23 wrote:
    ClavierCavalier wrote:

    I think one of the real problems with this is that a GM can see much further than a 1300, which is why they make better positional moves.  The 1300 could even make a move that looks perfect but the GM can quickly see a 13 turn tactic that destroys them.

    I think the easiest answer is to say that the 1300 has a chance to beat the GM but its implausible.  Sure, the GM could die a few turns into it, or the 1300 could be Bobby Fischer who never played a rated game since getting to 1300.  Maybe the 1300 is a hustler who purposely keeps their rating low.  Maybe the GM is the hustler who purposely loses the first game and then bets a huge sum of money on the second?  Oh, maybe the 1300 is a super intelligent alien chess genius and it's their first chess game?

    I think one of the problems is that the gm sees much farther than the amateur, understands positional chess much better, doesn't blunder near as much and the blunders are of a much more "minor" nature, knows the basic mating patterns, knows basic endgames, knows typical middlegame plans, and understands what good and bad pieces are, knows what good and bad pawn structures are and how they relate to the pieces are...But, that is just about it.

    Agreed, and add to that the inability of the 1300 to effectively capitalize on any mistakes the 2700 did make along the way.

     

    Remember, ratings measure results, not "strength."  The maximum deviation of 350-400 points is the outer limit of probability for any result other than the higher rated player wins. 

    That's not based on some theoretical supposition, it's a statistical fact.  Beyond that rating difference - assuming as we must that both ratings are reasonably accurate - the chance of the lower rated player not losing approaches zero.  The only reason it isn't actually zero is due more to mathematical theory than chess practice. 

    The reason they won't be able to take advantage is all of the things I listed (and probably a few other I left out)

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #536

    Rasparovov

    The 1300 will not play certain moves that can be winning because he thinks they are losing, therefore can't luck and win.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #537

    ClavierCavalier

    Imagine the rating boost!

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #538

    Elubas

    I agree that the rating system doesn't prove anything for this question in terms of possibility; the real reason I believe there is a chance is due to the points that I made a few pages ago, which I still stand by.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #539

    solskytz

    2300 isn't 'lowest' master level - it's actually above average master level. 

    Why?

    When you make 2300, you get the master (FM) title. Right?

    From there on, suppose you were really 2300 strength at that point, the chances are 50% that your rating goes up, 50% that it goes down. 

    So - the 50% whose ratings go down (maybe they weren't really WORTH 2300 but just had a rating 'peak' there, and actually their strength is, say, 2262), REMAIN FMs. 

    The 50% who were underrated and are actually stronger - go up. Some of them become IMs and drop out of the FM pool!

    So - we have 50% covering ratings 2299 and lower, and under 50% covering ratings of 2300 up to around 2400 and not much more, as these will no longer be FMs - but IMs and up. 

    Hence, 2300 is at least average FM strength. Anything above that figure means that the guy is a 'strong' FM. 

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #540

    madhacker

    Yeah ok point taken, you know what I meant, I meant base level for achieving a title. Hell, I've come across titled players rated lower than me before.


Back to Top

Post your reply: