Did anybody mention yet that even a 2800 or 2900 player can sometimes lose a game by not realizing what is the correct time control for the tournament 
It has to be shown that a 1300 player can get into the tournament somehow. I wonder if there are any circumstances where a GM can send a daughter or son into the tournament as a delegate.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
Cavatine, you still have to make it to move 39, which is not likely. You also have to present the GM with enough problems that he runs into time pressure.
In a word, "Forget about it"!
In a word, "Forget about it"!
Cavatine wrote:
Did anybody mention yet that even a 2800 or 2900 player can sometimes lose a game by not realizing what is the correct time control for the tournament It has to be shown that a 1300 player can get into the tournament somehow. I wonder if there are any circumstances where a GM can send a daughter or son into the tournament as a delegate.
Politiken cup in Denmark is an open tournament where 2700 and 1300 plays in the same class. The number one rated on the startlist is at 2720, number 299 is rated 1141. There are unrated players too.
http://www.ksu.dk/politiken_cup/turnering/deltagere.aspx?tur_id=1413&land_dist=1&rat_dist=1&titel_dist=1&aar=2015
Scrumpymanjack wrote:
TheNewMikhailTal wrote:
Scrumpymanjack wrote:
You can type all you like but if you want an answer to the question, it is no. A 1300 player would have less chance of beating a 2700 player than a person just starting to learn tennis would have of beating Rafael Nadal.
On what grounds do you base that assertion?(It's okay if its just your opinion).
A 2700 rating implies profound knowledge of every aspect of the game, which enables a player of that strength to take advantage of even the slightest inaccuracy of his opponent's play or weakness in his opponent's position. The smallest slip, whether positional or tactical, would probably end up in a crushing defeat of his oponent.
By contrast, a 1300 rating implies that the player does not only not have any of the above but also still blunders material in even the most basic situations. In other words, and sorry for being so blunt, 1300 rated players are pretty bad at chess.
I know blitz is a different animal but it provides an interesting reference point, nonetheless: on this site, I have a highest blitz rating of 1863, which is pretty mediocre. I also slump horribly - and often - to about 1650, which is just a terrible rating. But even at my poor level, and in more than 6,000 games, I don't think I have ever lost to a 1,300 player. So just imagine how it would be if I played at 2700!
We are talking about 1300 Fide, and 1300 Fide is not that bad.A 1300 dont blunder in every game. A 1300 will beat 1800 from time to time.
I agree that 2700 is to heavy. A 1300 will have serious problems against everything over 1900.
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Bonny-Rotten wrote:
Could a 1700 lose to a 1300 ? Maybe.
I did beat (otb 90min+30sec a move) a 1800 Fide before I had rating , he did no blunders, but a couple misjudgements, so he ended up with knights against my bishops, and he also got a pawndoubling. Because my bishops had longer range, I won. I got 1400 and something in rating not far after that tournament. He got mated in 78 moves.
So, of course. 1700 is not enough to be safe against a 1300. But maybe 1900 is enough. I dont now. It is not easy at all to win against a 1300 when he/she gets it right, and some of them do play brilliant maybe 20% of their games.
Interesting! When I was 1700 uscf any player below my rating was toast. Maybe the reason is I study a lot Morphy's games and was very tactical player, I was only 1700 for few months and jump to 1800 uscf. The reason players lose to other player lower than them is carelessness and not concentrating on their game and playing aimless without a plan or worst playing coffee house chess, no standard opening and always attacking in the kingside; English have a nice term for players who are one trick pony attacker, "caveman". 
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Cavatine wrote:
Did anybody mention yet that even a 2800 or 2900 player can sometimes lose a game by not realizing what is the correct time control for the tournament It has to be shown that a 1300 player can get into the tournament somehow. I wonder if there are any circumstances where a GM can send a daughter or son into the tournament as a delegate.
Politiken cup in Denmark is an open tournament where 2700 and 1300 plays in the same class. The number one rated on the startlist is at 2720, number 299 is rated 1141. There are unrated players too.
http://www.ksu.dk/politiken_cup/turnering/deltagere.aspx?tur_id=1413&land_dist=1&rat_dist=1&titel_dist=1&aar=2015
That's great! One can just hope he doesn't get paired with Hammer or Fressinet in the first round .
yureesystem wrote:
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Bonny-Rotten wrote:
Could a 1700 lose to a 1300 ? Maybe.
I did beat (otb 90min+30sec a move) a 1800 Fide before I had rating , he did no blunders, but a couple misjudgements, so he ended up with knights against my bishops, and he also got a pawndoubling. Because my bishops had longer range, I won. I got 1400 and something in rating not far after that tournament. He got mated in 78 moves.
So, of course. 1700 is not enough to be safe against a 1300. But maybe 1900 is enough. I dont now. It is not easy at all to win against a 1300 when he/she gets it right, and some of them do play brilliant maybe 20% of their games.
Interesting! When I was 1700 uscf any player below my rating was toast. Maybe the reason is I study a lot Morphy's games and was very tactical player, I was only 1700 for few months and jump to 1800 uscf. The reason players lose to other player lower than them is carelessness and not concentrating on their game and playing aimless without a plan or worst playing coffee house chess, no standard opening and always attacking in the kingside; English have a nice term for players who are one trick pony attacker, "caveman".
A low rated player is typically unstable with huge leap from bottom to toplevel, while a 1800 is more consistent. The 1800s very seldom does blunder an officer. When you were at 1700 you probably was underrated. The fact that you elevated to 1800 very fast tells me that you must have played at 1800 strenght when you were 1700.
A 1300 is often very fresh, and have not became familiar with tournamentplaying. He/she does all kinds of mistakes , and the most common is to not get the timeconsumption right, spending to little time when much thinking is required. One week later, the 1300 can play strong, think long enough, get lucky in the opening (play the opening he /she is best trained in). A 1300 can play at 1800 in one game and blunder down to 800 in the next. A major 1300 problem is seeing. Seeing the board. The treaths. The tactics. Some games will be lost because of that, but there will be games where the sight is much, much better.
I did beat a 1300 in the clubchampionship. I was dominating. In that openingvariation we went to, he got to slow, and lost tempo. Two weeks later he did beat a stronger player than me. In our game he made no distinct mistake except for loosing tempo and getting outplayed for that reason.
When I as unrated outplayed a 1800 i was very , very fast in the opening, I got the Sicilian dragon as black completely right, and kept the speedadvantage for 20 moves. After that I converted the advantage to a pressure where I was able to get the bishoppair against knights. The bishoppair made it possible to fast enough run away from defencive tasks and promote a pawn on the other corner of the board.
I have some battles in our club with a little ca 1400 rated girl. She crushed me in january in the opening with white. In April I had white and totally outplayed her. In both matches it looked like there was at least 300 points difference in rating, but the real ratingdifference was minimal. What I am trying to say is that some lowrated players has enourmous difference between their top and bottomlevel, which means that strong players will loose against them now and then.
NewArdweaden wrote:
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Cavatine wrote:
Did anybody mention yet that even a 2800 or 2900 player can sometimes lose a game by not realizing what is the correct time control for the tournament It has to be shown that a 1300 player can get into the tournament somehow. I wonder if there are any circumstances where a GM can send a daughter or son into the tournament as a delegate.
Politiken cup in Denmark is an open tournament where 2700 and 1300 plays in the same class. The number one rated on the startlist is at 2720, number 299 is rated 1141. There are unrated players too.
http://www.ksu.dk/politiken_cup/turnering/deltagere.aspx?tur_id=1413&land_dist=1&rat_dist=1&titel_dist=1&aar=2015
That's great! One can just hope he doesn't get paired with Hammer or Fressinet in the first round .
I hope they will give Fressinet to me :)
I would love to experience a fantastic player.
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Bonny-Rotten wrote:
Could a 1700 lose to a 1300 ? Maybe.
I did beat (otb 90min+30sec a move) a 1800 Fide before I had rating , he did no blunders, but a couple misjudgements, so he ended up with knights against my bishops, and he also got a pawndoubling. Because my bishops had longer range, I won. I got 1400 and something in rating not far after that tournament. He got mated in 78 moves.
So, of course. 1700 is not enough to be safe against a 1300. But maybe 1900 is enough. I dont now. It is not easy at all to win against a 1300 when he/she gets it right, and some of them do play brilliant maybe 20% of their games.
Interesting! When I was 1700 uscf any player below my rating was toast. Maybe the reason is I study a lot Morphy's games and was very tactical player, I was only 1700 for few months and jump to 1800 uscf. The reason players lose to other player lower than them is carelessness and not concentrating on their game and playing aimless without a plan or worst playing coffee house chess, no standard opening and always attacking in the kingside; English have a nice term for players who are one trick pony attacker, "caveman".
A low rated player is typically unstable with huge leap from bottom to toplevel, while a 1800 is more consistent. The 1800s very seldom does blunder an officer. When you were at 1700 you probably was underrated. The fact that you elevated to 1800 very fast tells me that you must have played at 1800 strenght when you were 1700.
A 1300 is often very fresh, and have not became familiar with tournamentplaying. He/she does all kinds of mistakes , and the most common is to not get the timeconsumption right, spending to little time when much thinking is required. One week later, the 1300 can play strong, think long enough, get lucky in the opening (play the opening he /she is best trained in). A 1300 can play at 1800 in one game and blunder down to 800 in the next. A major 1300 problem is seeing. Seeing the board. The treaths. The tactics. Some games will be lost because of that, but there will be games where the sight is much, much better.
I did beat a 1300 in the clubchampionship. I was dominating. In that openingvariation we went to, he got to slow, and lost tempo. Two weeks later he did beat a stronger player than me. In our game he made no distinct mistake except for loosing tempo and getting outplayed for that reason.
When I as unrated outplayed a 1800 i was very , very fast in the opening, I got the Sicilian dragon as black completely right, and kept the speedadvantage for 20 moves. After that I converted the advantage to a pressure where I was able to get the bishoppair against knights. The bishoppair made it possible to fast enough run away from defencive tasks and promote a pawn on the other corner of the board.
I have some battles in our club with a little ca 1400 rated girl. She crushed me in january in the opening with white. In April I had white and totally outplayed her. In both matches it looked like there was at least 300 points difference in rating, but the real ratingdifference was minimal. What I am trying to say is that some lowrated players has enourmous difference between their top and bottomlevel, which means that strong players will loose against them now and then.
I played a German FIDE master, he beat awhile back GM Browne. This FIDE master very strong master and unfortunately for me I was black, I normally played the Sicilian but I decided to play the Caro Kann defense against him,the Caro kann it didn't workout for me, this German FIDE master outplay me in the opening and early middlegame and we exchange queens, he had a winning advantage in the endgame; but he choke it and blunder a pawn through a petite combination by me, my team captain ask me to offer a draw. So I did for the team and the master accept it quickly. Why I mention this is , even very strong master make mistake if they don't concentrate and play aimlessly. After the game I saw the German master again and he said very boring game, that is why he drew, it was not his attacking style position he likes. When you higher rated it is your job to win, put pressure the in position and not blunder; a lapse in concentrate can make the differance from winning or losing.
Ed, here you highlighted a problem for the higher rated: "When you higher rated it is your job to win, put pressure the in position and not blunder; a lapse in concentrate can make the differance from winning or losing."
A higher rated player excpects to win, and plays for the win, even when he is slightly worse. That mindset can be to offensive and weaken his defence. If he met his equal he wouldnt necessarily play for victory standing slightly worse. He might give it all to save a draw. For an 1800 it is outside the main ideas to save a draw against an unrated.
I'm sure a 1300 rated player would have a good chance against a player rated 2700 -- if the 2700 rated player just had a stroke.
no i cant even beat a 2000
imsighked2 wrote:
I'm sure a 1300 rated player would have a good chance against a player rated 2700 -- if the 2700 rated player just had a stroke.
It needs to be a severe stroke.
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Ed, here you highlighted a problem for the higher rated: "When you higher rated it is your job to win, put pressure the in position and not blunder; a lapse in concentrate can make the differance from winning or losing."
A higher rated player excpects to win, and plays for the win, even when he is slightly worse. That mindset can be to offensive and weaken his defence. If he met his equal he wouldnt necessarily play for victory standing slightly worse. He might give it all to save a draw. For an 1800 it is outside the main ideas to save a draw against an unrated.
I agree with most what you wrote, but "slightly worse", it depends on the position, if low rated player has dangerous kingside attack , first defended and when you have a chance counter-attack, this happen me to against a talent teenage girl, she was rated 1400 uscf, she beat one expert and third round had to played her, she was white and gain a large advantage from the opening and had a powerful attack, she miss played her attack and allow me to counter-attack and I won. In those circumstance one needs to hold tight and look for oppotunities, a lot players just blunder when they being press and crumb.
yureesystem wrote:
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Ed, here you highlighted a problem for the higher rated: "When you higher rated it is your job to win, put pressure the in position and not blunder; a lapse in concentrate can make the differance from winning or losing."
A higher rated player excpects to win, and plays for the win, even when he is slightly worse. That mindset can be to offensive and weaken his defence. If he met his equal he wouldnt necessarily play for victory standing slightly worse. He might give it all to save a draw. For an 1800 it is outside the main ideas to save a draw against an unrated.
I agree with most what you wrote, but "slightly worse", it depends on the position, if low rated player has dangerous kingside attack , first defended and when you have a chance counter-attack, this happen me to against a talent teenage girl, she was rated 1400 uscf, she beat one expert and third round had to played her, she was white and gain a large advantage from the opening and had a powerful attack, she miss played her attack and allow me to counter-attack and I won. In those circumstance one needs to hold tight and look for oppotunities, a lot players just blunder when they being press and crumb.
That talented 1400-girl. It reminds me of a rapidgame I had at similar rating against a Fide 1937. I had outplayed him with a lucky powerful opening and he was close to resign in move 23, but then I hesitated and did one not hardpressing move. He punished me, came back, got counterplay an won in the end. I was happy that I managed to play good in 23 moves, and thought next time I can do well in 28, later 37 and with more and more practicing 100 fine moves can be possible. Rapidgames are very difficult for me to play, because I have not the same level of automation as the experienced players.
It is not impossible, but we will not see it for a long long time.
You need to meet 2500+ players irl just too see how strong they actually are (or even 2000+ players).
I don't think OP has had this kind of experience.