Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 14 hours ago · Quote · #2761

    Elubas

    "we can get into positions whose evaluation we didn't expect."

    Right. It's not just random blunders. The above point is a much more realistic scenario. Still super unlikely, but nevertheless. Maybe one game in a thousand between the 2700 and 1300 will feature some closed up position where the 1300 doesn't have to play great moves to hold together. Even here the 1300 is extremely likely to lose, but it's probably not a negligible chance that they would draw or win (maybe the 2700 overpresses, maybe the 1300 is feeling inspired and finds better ideas). Remember that at the end of the day the 1300 and 2700 are both human, even if they're in good form.

  • 14 hours ago · Quote · #2762

    leiph18

    Yes, I guess that's the basic argument. The randomness in chess due to humans not seeing to the end on top of the randomness of humans in general (bad day, in a mood to play too fancy, stuff like this).

    So you can say there is some non-zero chance.

    But it's all a bit silly in practice. The position not being what you expect and being in a odd mood is something you might see in a 700 point upset, not a 1400 point upset. The higher the difference in skill, the more extreme the randomness will have to be.

    So is the randomness great enough to cover the skill gap? I think the answer is yes or no, but I also think we'll only ever be able to answer maybe. (I feel like bizarre blunders like hanging a mate in 1, while possible, betray the spirit of the question.)

    As for pulling a theory out of an ass, I'm just giving one structure to it. I.e. that for each position there exists knowledge and ability to play it correctly and that individuals have an incomplete collection of this knowledge. Also any two players have a finite set of positions they can generate. Given this model some players will always beat other players when every position they can generate can be played correctly by one of them.

    Sure the rating system may be the best we have, but we only use statistics because we have incomplete information. If we know everything it's only yes or no. Much like the real eval of a position (win/draw/loss) or is chess a draw with best play.

  • 14 hours ago · Quote · #2763

    BMeck

    leiph18 wrote:
    Elubas wrote:

    The 1300 only needs a tiny percentage of opportunities to win a tiny percentage of the time.

    Ok, so I understand there is a random nature to chess. No one can see to the end, so (other than just uncharacteristic blunders) we can get into positions whose evaluation we didn't expect.

    Still, it's not so random that this evaluation is off by an enormous amount. If you want to say a 1300 has a non-zero chance, ok, I can't prove it either way. But I think you can argue a basis for there being a 100% chance in some cases.

    100% doesnt exist in reality. The 1300 could play the best moves by guessing . There is always something.

  • 14 hours ago · Quote · #2764

    leiph18

    BMeck wrote:
    leiph18 wrote:
    Elubas wrote:

    The 1300 only needs a tiny percentage of opportunities to win a tiny percentage of the time.

    Ok, so I understand there is a random nature to chess. No one can see to the end, so (other than just uncharacteristic blunders) we can get into positions whose evaluation we didn't expect.

    Still, it's not so random that this evaluation is off by an enormous amount. If you want to say a 1300 has a non-zero chance, ok, I can't prove it either way. But I think you can argue a basis for there being a 100% chance in some cases.

    100% doesnt exist in reality. The 1300 could play the best moves by guessing . There is always something.

    Then there is no 0% in reality. And the 1300 cannot make a "pure" guess. I.e. the method and reasoning will always be non-random.

    My POV gets into deterministic stuff, which I'm not informed enough to have a strong stance either way.

  • 14 hours ago · Quote · #2765

    leiph18

    Ah, in that model complete information to play a position correctly would only exist for very simple positions. Very strong players play complicated positions well, but not perfectly.

    It wouldn't be hard to say any set of knowledge and ability is incomplete enough that there is never a 100% chance.

    This is all intuitive of course, but it's fun (for me) trying to organize the thoughts and write/type them out. Sometimes making the effort you reach an unintuitive conclusion.

  • 13 hours ago · Quote · #2766

    OBIT

    Actually, an exact answer to this question can be given, at least from a statistical standpoint.  The rating system is based on a bell curve with a standard deviation of 200√2, which is a little less than 283.  With a 1400 point rating difference, the mathematical expectation for the lower rated player is .000000372.  This means if 2.7 million games are played between an 1300 and a 2700 player, the 1300 player can be expected to pick up one point.

  • 13 hours ago · Quote · #2767

    leiph18

    @ OBIT

    theSicilianDragon wrote:

    To all of those doing Elo-system math:

    Those calculations work for people who are relatively close in rating, but every model breaks down at some point.  When one player has twice the points of the other, the probabilistic model of the Elo system breaks down. The experimental error on the expectation calculation from an Elo rating is far greater than .0003.  It is likely that it will take far more than 3163 games for a 1300 player to beat a 2700 player considering other factors.

    Post #76, 2 years ago.

  • 12 hours ago · Quote · #2768

    OBIT

    leiph18: I agree with that two-year-old post from theSicilianDragon that the ELO-system math breaks down when the rating disparity is large.  When the rating difference is less than 400 points, the ELO math fits the normal bell curve pretty well.  However, then discrepancies start to creep in, and the bigger the rating difference, the worse the discrepancies get.  To give some concrete examples:

     

    When the rating difference is 200 points, the ELO calculation gives the stronger player a .76 expectation.  I get the same answer with a normal bell curve: 200 points =  200/283 = .71 standard deviations = .76 probability.

     

    When the rating difference is 400 points, the ELO calculation gives the stronger player a .91 expectation, while I get .92 with a normal bell curve, still pretty good.

     

    However, at 850 points (i.e. 3 standard deviations), the ELO calculation gives the stronger player a .993  expectation, while it is..999 with a normal bell curve.  So, if 1,000 games are played, ELO predicts the weaker player will pick up seven points, while the normal curve predicts the weaker player only gets one. 

     

    Now, at 1400 points... yeh, this is just too big a discrepancy for the ELO math to be meaningful.  And, I suppose it could be argued the normal curve math is suspect as well.  Statistics work very nicely for the data that falls in the fat area of the bell curve, but not so well for the extreme cases.  That's why, for example, an IQ measurement of 115 sounds reasonable, but anyone claiming to have an IQ over 145 is just spouting BS.    

  • 7 hours ago · Quote · #2769

    Milliern

    In my experience, a GM's ability to coordinate minor pieces is too much for anyone under expert.  Playing GM Shabalov once, he happlily gave me his Q for 3 minor pieces and a pawn at the back end, and there was nothing I could do.  I imagine this sort of thing, as well as the ability to find resources, etc., makes it effectively impossible for GM that is in his or her right mind and paying any kind of attention to lose to such a player.

     

    One other point: I have heard that the idea behind the USCF rating system (all rating systems, maybe?) is that a 400-point difference is supposed to mean that there is no realistic likelihood of the lower player beating the higher or the game ending in a draw, if the rating difference is truly 400 points.   

  • 4 hours ago · Quote · #2770

    Elubas

    Sadly I lost, recently, to a player who at the time was about 500 points lower than me :( He played a good game too. Chess is strange sometimes.

  • 4 hours ago · Quote · #2771

    Scottrf

    Milliern wrote:

    In my experience, a GM's ability to coordinate minor pieces is too much for anyone under expert.  Playing GM Shabalov once, he happlily gave me his Q for 3 minor pieces and a pawn at the back end, and there was nothing I could do.  I imagine this sort of thing, as well as the ability to find resources, etc., makes it effectively impossible for GM that is in his or her right mind and paying any kind of attention to lose to such a player.

     

    One other point: I have heard that the idea behind the USCF rating system (all rating systems, maybe?) is that a 400-point difference is supposed to mean that there is no realistic likelihood of the lower player beating the higher or the game ending in a draw, if the rating difference is truly 400 points.   

    400 points should be a 95% score I believe.

    So the worse player should win 5 in 100, or draw 10, or a combination.

  • 4 hours ago · Quote · #2772

    Elubas

    It always seems like the chances of the lower player winning (against me for instance) are higher than 5%, even with those kinds of rating differences. I play in swiss tournaments and I'll usually play two or three people 300-400 points lower, and 1 or 2 players slightly stronger than me. While I don't lose/draw often to the lower players, it doesn't seem rare either, certainly not 5% rare. I guess it's just my imagination.

  • 4 hours ago · Quote · #2773

    Scottrf

    I guess it depends whether you're playing someone who has been sitting at that rating, or someone who is better than that but their rating lags behind.

    For an improving player, they will generally play stronger than their rating.

  • 3 hours ago · Quote · #2774

    DjonniDerevnja

    Scottrf wrote:

    I guess it depends whether you're playing someone who has been sitting at that rating, or someone who is better than that but their rating lags behind.

    For an improving player, they will generally play stronger than their rating.

    Among the  good kids this difference often are several houndred points.

  • 3 hours ago · Quote · #2775

    Ziryab

    Statistical analysis is next to worthless when you are talking about the elite of the elite. During the years of the thread, the number of players rated over 2700 has varied from 45 to 50.

    The discussion, however, has focused on the general strength of Grandmasters without the recognition that 2700s win almost every game against GMs below 2650.

    1300s have no chance. That is, the chance of a rank beginner is less than the fraction of a tenth of a percent that might be predicted from statistical analysis.

  • 3 hours ago · Quote · #2776

    Scottrf

    That's a long way from no chance though. Of course that's arguing over semantics.

  • 3 hours ago · Quote · #2777

    Jimmykay

    A more interesting question would be:

    Could a 1300 get 5/10 in ten games being spotted a QUEEN against a 2700 player?

    I would say no, the 1300 would score less than 5 in 10 games.

  • 3 hours ago · Quote · #2778

    Scottrf

    I don't think it would be hard at all. Make symmetrical moves, trade at pretty much every opportunity. It's hard to mate when you can't exchange material.

  • 3 hours ago · Quote · #2779

    Jimmykay

    Scottrf wrote:

    I don't think it would be hard at all. Make symmetrical moves, trade at pretty much every opportunity. It's hard to mate when you can't exchange material.

    I do not think it owuld be hard for you either, Scott, but you are not a 1300.

  • 3 hours ago · Quote · #2780

    esveesea

    I would love to watch the 10 games under Jimmykay's scenario


Back to Top

Post your reply: