Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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

  • 21 hours ago · Quote · #2741


    Well, they're much higher rated, I would expect GMs would score quite well against 2200s. But there are probably times where the 2200 would get some chances or the GM might have trouble not allowing a draw, something like that. Like we all do occasionally against players 300-400 points lower than us.

    You would pretty much have to inflate the understood strength of the 2700 if the odds of the 2700 beating the 1300 were higher than what the rating system would predict.

    Think about how weird this is. So a 1500 has some x chances of beating a 1300, whatever the rating system says, it seems like people agree with smaller differences like this. Ok, and so the 1600 has even higher chances of beating the 1300. And the 1700 has higher chances of beating the 1300. This should all increase incrementally. But if you are to make the argument that the 2700 has better odds of beating the 1300 than as the ratings would predict, you'd have to at some point, arbitrarily, inflate things. Maybe some would say, oh well once you get to 1800, 1300s simply can't win, cause the difference is just too high. Ok... well, why then is it that when you're 1700 they can win, but when you become 1800 you're immortal? You're not immortal, you just have better odds at beating the 1300 than the 1700 because 1800 players are better than 1700s. The odds just go up a normal amount. If you do this instead with 1900s and not 1800s, it's still arbitrary -- what is it that is so different about a 1900 and 1800 that makes a 1900 losing impossible, but an 1800 winning merely "unlikely?" Or you could cut it off with 2000s, or 2100s, etc, but it's the same problem.

    Granted this does not take into account the psychological nature of huge rating differences like this. If the odds of a 2700 player beating a 1300 player or scoring a certain amount of points is higher/lower than what the rating system predicts, it could be for psychological reasons. Other reasons don't initially look plausible.

  • 20 hours ago · Quote · #2742


    I can beat Houdini with initially being a queen up, so if I can get the 2700 rated guy drunk somehow and play a game with him right after that, may be he will hang his queen and then I can win!

    However the probability of even that happening is 0.001. LOL :)

  • 17 hours ago · Quote · #2743


    BMeck wrote:
    DjonniDerevnja wrote:
    Linc95 wrote:

    If anyone has heard of Wolfram|Alpha, it has a win percentage chance calculator - just input the ELO ratings you'd like to compare. It estimates the likelihood of a 1300 winning a match up vs. a 2700 to be 0.0316% (roughly 1/3164). Bear in mind it's a theoretical calculator only! In reality I would personally expect the odds to be even lower than that, I just thought some of your folks minght find it interesting.

    Link: http://goo.gl/NLrlCk

    I dont believe it.1300´s have good and bad days, same with the GM. 

    Magnus Carlsen blundered against Anand in a WCgame, and Anand blundered back, he didnt see it. The GM´s are not overhuman supergods. They too make mistakes,

    and a skyrocketing 1300 on the way up (maybe actual strenght closer to 1900) does play at his best some days, and that can be fantastic chess.

    One day a 1300 can play as a 2000, and at a very bad day a GM can play as a 1800. A Gm can also test a line he doesnt know well yet, and be punished on that.

    I had a game when I was at878N-Elo , fideunrated, when I with black outplayed a 1800fide, and mated him in 78 moves. I played fantastic, and he wasnt bad. His mistake was that he did not try to play for a draw when I opened absolutely smooth. That day I was better. I played like 2000. A GM could have done a similar mistake.

    Most players are theirselves worst enemy. If they are playing their best, they can beat almost anybody. If not, they can loose to almost anybody.

    It was established earlier in the thread(I obviously dont expect you to read all of it) that the 1300 player is a true 1300 player.... But as for your example, a GM will not make the same mistake as an 1800 player. You could have played at a 2200 level and a GM will still have an easy time with you.

    But what if the 1300 plays an opening line he has spesialized perfect the first 23 moves, and the Gm misses some theory?

    (a 1300 can have one or two openings that is perfectionized, and if he is lucky, he can use them, out of luck, he cant, and then he will loose most games to 1400+)

    When you are ruling out the 1300´s that is not true 1300, you are ruling out a lot  of the 1300´s. A 1300 is usually a learning player on the way up, and he or she might be 9 years old. A 9 year old 1300 is very often beating players above 1600. Those kids can calculate ten times faster than an adult 1800 and also have talents ten times higher, and started playing chess earlier.

    The normal Fiderated otb-playingadult, whose rating is somewhat settled, is rated between 1500 and 1900. Below 1500 (like me), he/she is  quite fresh (learning), and above 1900 I consider as very good and above normal strenght. So most players at 1300 are learning chess, and among those learning there are a lot of kids, and most kids are underrated because they are on the fasttrack up.

    Actually there are only two players of the 110 in my club that is close to 1300. One is 11 years old at 1266 and the other is ca 40 years at 1368. Most of the superkids jumps directly to 1400+ the first time they get fiderating.

    The fact that most superkids jumps directly to 1400+, rules out most of the superkids, so that tells me that the chance of a 1300 beating a 2700 is less than I thought.

    The player that is around that strenght, or a bit above (Norwegian  elo 946), that is fantastic in one spesific opening, has not got fiderating yet. He is a comebackadult.

  • 15 hours ago · Quote · #2744


    It's been noted a couple of times, but bears repeating for those joining late. There are a few here who can name every 2700+ player. There are about four dozen. 2700s routinely beat ordinary GMs. They are the world's elite.

  • 15 hours ago · Quote · #2745


    If the 1300 player and the 2700 player continues to play a sufficiently large number of games, sooner or later one of them falls asleep and loses on time.

  • 14 hours ago · Quote · #2746


    I believe that a 1300 can beat a 2700 player under special circumstances, such as...

    the 2700 didn't get enough sleep and is too tired to stay awake, the 2700 player is too distracted by something, such as the TV, etc.

  • 6 hours ago · Quote · #2747


    I am rated under 2000 and can beat most 1300s most of the time with minimal effort even when I am drunk AND tired AND playing a simul. How do you think the top 45 players in the world would do?

    Fill him full of vodka and poke out his eyes, he will still win at least nineteen games in a twenty board simul against 1300s. The other game ended in a draw because the 1300 knew the opening cold 25 moves deep.

Back to Top

Post your reply: