Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 10 hours ago · Quote · #2781

    Ziryab

    Scottrf wrote:

    That's a long way from no chance though. Of course that's arguing over semantics.

    Semantics indeed, as in the chance that Vatican City would deploy nuclear weapons. It's a long shot, of course, but they could decide that it would be useful and could work towards that goal.

  • 10 hours ago · Quote · #2782

    Jimmykay

    esveesea wrote:

    I would love to watch the 10 games under Jimmykay's scenario

    It would make a great chess.com promotion! Get Nakamura to play 10 games spotting a queen to a 1300. Someone pass this along!

  • 6 hours ago · Quote · #2783

    DjonniDerevnja

    Ziryab wrote:

    Statistical analysis is next to worthless when you are talking about the elite of the elite. During the years of the thread, the number of players rated over 2700 has varied from 45 to 50.

    The discussion, however, has focused on the general strength of Grandmasters without the recognition that 2700s win almost every game against GMs below 2650.

    1300s have no chance. That is, the chance of a rank beginner is less than the fraction of a tenth of a percent that might be predicted from statistical analysis.

    GM Agdestein(ca2630) met those 2700+´s in Norway chess. Most of the games were draw. 

  • 5 hours ago · Quote · #2784

    CRERULES

    yes

  • 3 hours ago · Quote · #2785

    Ziryab

    Agdestein is a stud; "almost every" is hyperbole. I would guess that it's closer to 50% wins, a few losses, and quite a few draws.

    Against Agdestine, the 1300 has a fraction of a hundredth of a percent chance of a draw. He's well below 2700.

  • 3 hours ago · Quote · #2786

    Admiral_Kirk

    IT's possible if the 2700 has a heart attack, dies, and runs out of time.

  • 101 minutes ago · Quote · #2787

    Ziryab

    Mostly, they are young and in good health. A heart attack is extremely unlikely. I think the oldest 2700s+ are Kramnik, Anand, and Ivanchuk.

  • 80 minutes ago · Quote · #2788

    forrie

    "You know they say that if a monkey was forced to type for an infinite amount of time, eventually the random strokes it makes will "just happen" to be identical to Shakespeare's Hamlet."

    most people here believe the chances are 0% that a 2700 might loose to a 1300 rated player. When the question relates to something people has experience with they understand how unlikely the chances are. Yet when they dont know the subject well they would say there is always a chance.

    For instance many people believe that life on earth started from a random organisation of chemical compounds (that cant be repeated in the lab even!).

  • 46 minutes ago · Quote · #2789

    Elubas

    It is not a cause for optimism to say that a 1300 player has a one in thousands chance against a 2700. It's a rather hopeless scenario.

  • 43 minutes ago · Quote · #2790

    Elubas

    "The discussion, however, has focused on the general strength of Grandmasters without the recognition that 2700s win almost every game against GMs below 2650."

    I don't think they would be 2700s if they won almost every game against GMs below 2650 :)

  • 41 minutes ago · Quote · #2791

    tkbunny

  • 38 minutes ago · Quote · #2792

    Ziryab

    Really, Elubas? I often respect and even agree with your views. But, in this thread, you seem completely oblivious of the strength of grandmasters of any level, and particularly dismissive of the strength of the world's elite.

  • 37 minutes ago · Quote · #2793

    Elubas

    I was literally thinking of bringing that up just now. Unless you are Lloyd, don't let the nonzero chance of beating a 2700 get your hopes up. You'd have to spend many many lifetimes in open tournaments just to get the tiniest chance of beating a player even close to 2700.

    And to be fair, when I say "1300 beating a 2700," I more mean, scoring one point. It might be much more likely that the 1300 gets his points with two draws rather than one win.

  • 34 minutes ago · Quote · #2794

    Elubas

    Ziryab wrote:

    Really, Elubas? I often respect and even agree with your views. But, in this thread, you seem completely oblivious of the strength of grandmasters of any level, and particularly dismissive of the strength of the world's elite.

    It seems strange to judge that based on the answer to an extremely odd question. It's like judging someone's morals based on how they would react to a moral dilemma where both options look bad. In any case I certainly respect your opinion.

    But I did find the 2700s beating 2650 comments strange... just because, why wouldn't 2700s rating go up if they got such lovely results? I mean that's pretty much just a mathematical concern of mine lol. I mean sure if you ignore the draws... which, tell a decent amount of the story.

  • 30 minutes ago · Quote · #2795

    Ziryab

    Maybe, we're closer to agreement than I thought.

  • 26 minutes ago · Quote · #2796

    Elubas

    In any case, it is hard to conceptualize the strength of players, actually not even just strong players. Sometimes I have a hard time judging how players weaker than me will play, they often see many more things than I think they would. I think it's easy to fall into either trap: idolizing a level of play, and not seeing the possible imperfections; or, perhaps, focusing too much on the silly 1 in a million blunders even really strong players make, since they often get a lot of attention. But for every one of those blunders, there are an unbelievable amount of non blunders. I try to go in the middle by not arbitrarily altering what the rating system would predict. As fallible as that may be, it's not clear to me that just coming up with a different prediction based on one's "feeling" that 2700s are too good is any more rational. A lot of things just "feel" a certain way; but when we go by feelings, we can let those take over our rational thoughts.

  • 18 minutes ago · Quote · #2797

    Elubas

    "Given this model some players will always beat other players when every position they can generate can be played correctly by one of them."

    It takes a lot for what you are saying to be true though. There are so many different positions in chess, with so many different styles. In some positions one's knowledge about many other things will be useless. On the other side of the coin, maybe you reach a position it just so happens you were just looking at. Your knowledge of that position might be useful nowhere else, but you just so happen to reach it. I've been on both sides of this sort of thing. When higher rated players get into trouble against lower rated players, I think this is the more common reason, rather than just blunders. Some strange situation happens where the higher player's overall knowledge doesn't help as much as usual. In the case of this huge difference, of course, any "luck" the 1300 gets will only be in a relative way -- even with everything in their favor they will still lose almost every time.

  • 4 minutes ago · Quote · #2798

    Ziryab

    My initial USCF rating was 1250, but my first non-provisional rating was over 1400. An old friend of mine beat me in my first USCF tournament, but I beat him him more than fifteen years earlier when we were in high school. He remains in the 1300s while I have been over 1900. I recognize that some 1300s have skills, but they also have significant defects. Other 1300s are beginners on the way up. I was 1300 only when I was unrated, and until my second rated tournament. It is hard for me to imagine such unskilled players doing well against players who have clobbered me, let alone those who clobber those who clobber me.

    My best OTB draw came after 40+ hours of prep for a match with a 2250 FIDE Master. I was mid-1700s at the time. My preparation gave me enormous respect for the skills of a relatively weak master compared to the skill of GMs, let alone super-GMs.


Back to Top

Post your reply: