I imagine about the same chance a 6 year old has of beating an adult in a fist fight
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
The chance is about the same amount of time you would have to wait for that to actually happen...
Actually, a drunk 2700 would still win 99 of 100 games against a sober 1300.
Better to sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian.
My final answer: the 1300 can't beat the 2700, because the 2700 sees more then the 1300 :-) hope that sets it straight finally.
@solskytz: Ah, yes, I never realized that. Looks like I have to give up my argument 
alain978 wrote:
It could be possible when the 2700 plays against 25 or 30 players in exhibition. The pace is very fast. Each player has 5 or 10 minutes to concentrate while the pro has only seconds. Running boards after boards, he can't make any plans and probably can't remember the last move. Some of the players should win and good chances there's 1300 or even less in that gang... But in a real game, it's something else...
You underestimate their strength. Pro players can play at an excellent level on autopilot, working without really calculating and using only pattern recognition.
I've been co-organizer of strong simuls with the likes of Kramnik or Anand ~15 years ago. They didn't lose any single game when pitted against 35 students in the rating range 1500-2300...
<Etubas> Definitely :-)
<hicetnunc> When you have 2300 level students, I'd say you're in pretty good shape chesswise.
OBVISLY 1400 player can win JUST NOT LIKLY
lol
bigpoison wrote:
Better to sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian.
Hey, stop quoting Mudville, will ya?
FEDTEL wrote:
solskytz wrote:
My final answer: the 1300 can't beat the 2700, because the 2700 sees more then the 1300 :-) hope that sets it straight finally.
This way there is no need to play chess.
simply compare the ratings, the one rated higher wins because he "sees" more than the lower rated player, if they have the same rating, simply it's a draw
There's plenty of reason to play when ratings are within a few hundred points.
Applying the "magical" ELO formula that returns the expected winning percentage of a player based off the rating difference, the 1300 player will win about 0.032% of games.... thats a measly 4 wins per 125 games.
It's hard to say whether the ELO system is very accurate when estimating the expected winning percentage of such a match because of the huge rating difference between the players. But still, 4 - 121 in favor of the 2700 player tells a strong story.
iixxPROxxii wrote:
Applying the "magical" ELO formula that returns the expected winning percentage of a player based off the rating difference, the 1300 player will win about 0.032% of games.... thats a measly 4 wins per 125 games.
It's hard to say whether the ELO system is very accurate when estimating the expected winning percentage of such a match because of the huge rating difference between the players. But still, 4 - 121 in favor of the 2700 player tells a strong story.
I think that you are misreading the Elo data. A 2700 playing a simul against 125 1300 players might give up four games on a bad day.
Yep, must be a misread...
Whether it is a misread or not, I highly doubt that the ELO formula for a match between two players with such a vast rating difference holds well...
It was probably not designed with rating differences so vast in mind.
0.032% isn't 4 in 125, it's 4 in 12500. Still seems a little high IMHO
The answer is no in theory, no in the real world, but within the realm of random possibility given that a 2700 could be drunk or have a stroke.