You're basically asking to toss a coin and get 1000 tails in a row. There are dreams and dreams. really.
linuxblue1 wrote:
From my experience of watching chess players each gap of 200 pts is 1 difference in chess technique that is massive. For instance one thing that I notice is that 2000 players are much, much worse than 2200 players at dealing with counterplay in a won game with tactical complications; the 2200 player will win such positions easily and without fuss. So 2700 - 1300 = 7 of those "technique blocks". That is a heck of a lot.
This is so true!!! Beating a master that is 2200- 2300 is extremely hard, even for an expert, my friend who is a strong expert rated 2160 uscf almost beat a strong 2300 uscf but drew. Masters see more opportunities in a position, their assessment is better than an expert and their biggest strength is in the endgame; I see masters beat experts in a dead even endgame. I remember losing to a master rated 2300 uscf, I outplay him in the opening and middlegame and he outplay me in the endgame and I lost in draw position. So you can imagine what a GM will do a 1300 player, crush!!! My master friend set up a position and ask me if I recognize who were the players and from what opening it came from, these masters have incredible store data in their memories, they can make plans better and see tactics deeply and recognize and lead to a desire position to win a game; what a big these players have over us less school in chess.
@Elubas "It was probably a provisional rating." Okay, the rest of your post makes sense, but haha, how can you try to tell me whether my rating was provisional or not? It was not provisional at that time- I had played well over 50 games by then.
The point of my post is that a 1300 player could be improving, and I know you guys are trying to make up some distinction between true 1300 and untrue 1300 or whatever that means, but what if the 1300 has his breakout tournament or something? Is that not "true"? If the 1300 plays at 1300 skill level, and the higher rated player plays at the expected skill level for his rating, then the higher player will win every game. But it doesn't work that way. People can be over and underrated, you never know, and on top of that people can have good and bad days. In my case, when I beat the expert it was a combination of him having a very rough day (he also lost on that day to a ~1700 player) and me being underrated. But does that mean that a 1381 didn't beat a 2018? No. I hope my point makes sense- I'm not sure I'm explaining it well lol
yeah. What's the glicko?
referring to potential player winning a gm, which is great, but is that where the story ends?
Of course, I'm talking about games when both players want to win.
I also don't buy %0 percent chance, because I think I can get a win against a Boris Gelfand type blunder.
The OP's op.
The chance is better than zero. There's a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance, approximately.
I may be short one or two zeros.
@Stephenson2 it was a tournament hosted by one of the chess clubs I go to. There is only one section, and the player strength within the section usually ranges from a "floor master" (a national master who has lost it a bit as he's aged and now has trouble staying above his 2100 floor- I've only played him once but with any luck he will soon become my highest-rated victim haha) to a 1100 type player. There are a bunch of 1600-2000 players there. But yeah if you're playing in a major open tournament, that sort of upset would only be possible with someone playing about two sections up.
dpnorman: Because you would probably have to win 30 games in a row to get your rating up that high in that short a period of time from a non-provisional rating :)
I actually think the chance of a 1300 beating a 2700 is higher than most people do; but I try to stay unbiased. When I see claims of people beating 2000s as 1400s, I will certainly investigate the most plausible explanations first.
We established the number of zeros after the decimal a few pages back. Maybe page 40. Maybe 25.
@Elubas Nope. I've just been playing a lot of higher-rated players and having results above my rating in my tournaments. If I had won 30 games in a row against higher-rated players, I would be much higher haha.
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
As far as actually sitting across the board from a really great player, and it happens to be a 2700!!! I would be very grateful for the time and less concerned of winning as I am of learning.
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
Analysis of actual results have demonstrated that the higher player underperforms relative to Elo predictions up to about 500 Elo difference, but then after a 500 point difference, the higher rated player performs significantly better than the predictions.
Well... I'm happy I put my time to good use. Until next thread... however long that takes. Hopefully you can all get through standard deviation class, as far as me I'm going to play chess. :)
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 would love to see the data they use to calculate it because I dont believe it is that "high."
I, as a 776 player, once beat a 2700 chess master .... of course, we were playing horseshoes!
Analysis of actual results have demonstrated that the higher player underperforms relative to Elo predictions up to about 500 Elo difference, but then after a 500 point difference, the higher rated player performs significantly better than the predictions.
That's an interesting point. I haven't come across any analyses on that before but I'll take your word for it. The calculator certainly wouldn't be taking into account differences in contextual performance like that^... I wonder how its predictions would change if it did? Very interesting :)
There both a citation to and discussion of a research article that presents the data a few pages back in this thread. It was maybe six months ago. There's also a link to the article.
I definitely agree with you, the chance is probably even lower, however that calculator is based on the equations underpinning the ELO rating system not an actual analysis of data. It's mathematical and conceptual only - reality is definitely going to be different! If we analysed proper data I'm sure the chance would be even lower than the ~1:3164 it predicts but for the sake of simplicity and for anyone interested I thought that calculator was relevant (even through it's probably not 100% accurate). As we seem to agree, reality would probably give an even smaller win-likelihood to the poor 1300.
@yureesystem When I was rated 1381 a little less than a year ago, I gained over sixty rating points by beating a 2018. So it does happen haha. Still to this day it is my highest-rated victory in rated OTB play, and I'm now over 1800.
Especially given that your 1381 rating was as extremely recent as "a little less than a year ago," and you are now 1800, the most likely explanation for all of this was that your rating hadn't caught up to your strength; it was probably a provisional rating.
That huge gap between the real strenght and the rating are typical for very talented kids. Remember when Magnus was 9 years old. I think he was rated 900, and whoops, one year later he was at 1900. The weeks he played rated ca 1300 he probably could have beaten lots of Gm´s
The first 1300 to beat a 2700 is probably a little kid with a terrific talent, or maybe a 14 year old superkid, rated 2500+ on chess.com, that is new Otb. Maybe a there is a kid like that in India, China, Scotland, Andorra or Burkina Faso?
Of course there is a 9 year old supertalent in my club, but its too late for him. He is already 1450, and skyrocketing .