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

• 2 hours ago · Quote · #3301
mdinnerspace написал:

Less than 0. Non-existant. Zilch. Nada. Not before hell freezes over. Not before the next big-bang.

Now this is stupid. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that there is a positive probability, even if it is infinitesimally small. Even if it's close enough to zero that it might as well be zero, and it probably is, to say it's less than zero is just absurd.

• 100 minutes ago · Quote · #3302

Last fide rated tournament ,a 1300 beaten 2 ,2200+ rated

• 99 minutes ago · Quote · #3303

Let's give two mutually exclusive possible scenarios and say which is more likely:

A) a legit 1300 defeats a 2700 in a standard classical time control FIDE rated game that matters to both players at least once, ever.

B) That never happens.

Both are possible, but are mutually exclusive. Which is more likely?

For me, it's B.

• 97 minutes ago · Quote · #3304

And btw, for the umpteenth time, by legit we aren't talking about someone who is underrated or cheating.

• 97 minutes ago · Quote · #3305

There is a chance that an unseen comet stikes the Earth tomorrow, but I won't bet on it.

• 91 minutes ago · Quote · #3306

Besides, we aren't talking about infinities. FIDE won't be around that long, neither will chess, neither will humanity.

• 85 minutes ago · Quote · #3307

Why not less than 0? People start throwing out numbers wily-nily. As, this number exists, therefor that number is possible, proving the third number is conceivable. Less than 0 is an irrational number, want to talk mathematics?

• 84 minutes ago · Quote · #3308

A 1300 player can easily beat a 2700 player... with a baseball bat... before the game... then, he'll beat him at chess as well.

• 83 minutes ago · Quote · #3309

... with the chess board.

• 82 minutes ago · Quote · #3310

Why not less than 0? People start throwing out numbers willy-nilly. As, this number exists, therefor that number is possible, proving the third number is conceivable. Less than 0 is an irrational number, want to talk mathematics?

• 77 minutes ago · Quote · #3311

"Less than 0" could be negative one or negative 456/1000. Those are RATIONAL numbers. And yes, I do want to talk mathematics!

Good bye!

• 65 minutes ago · Quote · #3312

Sure this has been said, but FIDE uses an Elo system with a standard devation of 2000/7.  Thus the mathematical probablity of a 1300 rated player beating 2700 rated player is

xz[ |x1 - x2| / σ ] = xz[ | 2700-1300 | / (2000/7) ] = 4.792845 x 10^-7

or about 1 in 2086443.  Meaning that you would exepect the lower rated player to win on average 1 game out of 2 million.  Of course this model does not work perfectly and doesn't take in to account the individual's rating confidence interval.  But mathmatically speaking there is a chance.

• 61 minutes ago · Quote · #3313

People want to believe anything is possible. This conclusion is not based on mathematical equations, but is simply a philosophy so to speak. Mathematical infinities are then employed to support a philosophical belief.

• 44 minutes ago · Quote · #3314
mdinnerspace wrote:

People want to believe anything is possible. This conclusion is not based on mathematical equations, but is simply a philosophy so to speak. Mathematical infinities are then employed to support a philosophical belief.

The question is entirely mathmatical, because the rating system is math.  The prompt is not asking if I could beat Magnus, but if a 1300 player could beat a 2700.  By using the rating system in the question you are pulling it away from an opinionated question into a question of math.  I am merely giving the answer based on how the rating system works.

Of course the rating system is inaccurate.  Everyone in chess knows not to take ratings to seriously.  Ratings say little to nothing about the style of play or the player themselves, it merely sums up trends in the relative and historic preformances against other players.

So could I beat Magnus Carlsen-not in a million years -opinion.

What is the probality (chance) that a 1300 beats a 2700 - ~1 in 2 million

• 25 minutes ago · Quote · #3315

A 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance.