10582 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
yes. it's not that hard. 2700 players make terrible blunders once in a while.
If it's not that hard, then you've clearly done it before, right?
not yet but of course i can do it given enough opportunities to play 2700 GM. it's not a big deal. if he blunders an exchange or a pawn he is dead. even a 2000 player can beat the world champ being an exchange up
There is a chance that anyone can beat a 2700 rated player. Lets say someone who does not know the rules of chess plays an infinite number of games against the 2700 rated player. Since he does not know the rules he moves a random piece to a random square on each of his moves. He will win an infinite number of games, because of the theoretical chance of him only doing best moves in a game.
Ok, let's tackle this one at a time:Greedy, your online standard rating is above average. You still wouldn't beat a 2700 with pawn odds. You're not beating a 2700-rated player in a standard control game up a rook for a bishop. This thread is about someone rated 1300.
letsplaychess: first of all, if your argument includes infinity, you need a better argument. Second of all, a 1300-rated player KNOWS THE RULES, so they won't make sheerly random moves. They will use their flawed judgment. Finally, even if they DID make random moves, the 2700-rated player would make infinite NON-RANDOM moves, meaning that in the end, their judgment would STILL prevail. Infinity is a nice catch-all that people who don't understand statistics and probability try to use.
There's a chance that some posters (luigi in another thread) could offer a logical statement backed by evidence, but I would not put money on it. Betting against is too close to a sure thing.
Same with the chances of the 1300.
But if the 2700 blunders his king? Remember , a 1300 is strong enough to survive 40 moves against a 2700, but probably a couple of pawns down with a lost position.
Really? A 1300 player would not make it to move 40 down 2 pawns or less more than 1 in 500 times, at best.
5/23/2015 - White Wins
by BryanCFB a few minutes ago
Who is the best chess player of all time ?vote here !
by SmyslovFan 3 minutes ago
This game here is why ya gotta love/hate blitz
by Knightly_News 5 minutes ago
My current playing set-up. Whats yours?
by loubalch 10 minutes ago
en passant = Cheater!
by ChastityMoon 14 minutes ago
by Mahaaveera 17 minutes ago
My chess sets
by Giampo 18 minutes ago
Other people see this forum bug?
by RonaldJosephCote 20 minutes ago
Chess.com Help & Support Where Are You?
by Migilla 47 minutes ago
Wrecking dat kingside
by Migilla 51 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!