Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 6 days ago · Quote · #2921

    chessmicky

    Nice trolling there, Greedy

  • 5 days ago · Quote · #2922

    Elubas

    Irinasdaddy wrote:
    Elubas wrote:

    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 :)

  • 5 days ago · Quote · #2923

    Irinasdaddy

    Elubas wrote:
    Irinasdaddy wrote:
    Elubas wrote:

    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.  

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #2924

    Elubas

    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.

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #2925

    chessmicky

    I was at a Nakamura simul last year where he took on 39 players, all of whom were rated higher than 1300. Using about 5 seconds at each table. Naka scored 38.5 - 0.5 in well under two hours. The idea that a 1300 player could ever threaten a 2700-rated grandmaster is simply ridiculous

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #2926

    Elubas

    So he even got a draw.

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #2927

    chessmicky

    Elubas wrote:

    So he even got a draw.

    Yes, a 2000+ player managed to get a perpetual with a knight sac. And he could sweep a simul against 10 1300s

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #2928

    Ziryab

    Blindfolded.

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #2929

    Elubas

    I really wish I could.

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #2930

    Jay_Roy_Hall

    No!

  • 37 hours ago · Quote · #2931

    letsplaychess1996

    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.

  • 37 hours ago · Quote · #2932

    GreedyPawnEater

    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?

  • 37 hours ago · Quote · #2933

    Murgen

    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.

  • 37 hours ago · Quote · #2934

    GreedyPawnEater

    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.

  • 37 hours ago · Quote · #2935

    letsplaychess1996

    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.

  • 37 hours ago · Quote · #2936

    Irinasdaddy

    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.  

  • 37 hours ago · Quote · #2937

    GreedyPawnEater

    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

  • 36 hours ago · Quote · #2938

    Murgen

    A million games is a few less than infinity... it seems the 1300's chances are improving! Laughing

  • 36 hours ago · Quote · #2939

    letsplaychess1996

    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?


Back to Top

Post your reply: