11213 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!
with great skill and profundity :D tak.
Elubas: In regards to the monkey, you are correct. To put this in chess terms, if an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, some of them will beat him. Well, actually that's an incorrect statement - to be accurate, an infinite number of monkeys will beat him. Both the number of games played and the number of games won by the monkeys are "countable infinities," you see...
There are two little errors in your statement:The number of games which are won by the sides might also be uncountable infinite if there are uncountable many monkeys (which you didn't specify). Of course I know that it is senseless (even in theory) to play uncountable many opponents (and to sum up uncountable many non-zero probablities is also not very mathematical) but show me enough monkeys to beat Carlsen and I will withdraw my argument. ;)Moreover Carlsen maybe just have found out how to always play for a draw. Then he will lose no game.
The point to understand is this: when you play chess, all the moves are right there in front of you. If you happen to pick the right ones (even if you know nothing about chess strategy and just make random moves), you too can play like a grandmaster. Given that, the odds of the stronger player winning is never 100%.
In a 50 move game A lot of 1300`s plays maybe 45 moves as a GM now and then, and maybe 4 inaccuracies and one bad move. In such games they will loose.
A Gm usually plays 50 or 49, og maybe 48 moves as a GM.
In his best games the 1300 have more Gm-like moves.
This is of course based on empty guesswork, and might not be true at all, but I can see from chess.com computeranalyze that in my best game when I was close to 1300 fide (which I have never been, my first rating was 1422), that ther were only two inaccuracies, and those two was the moves leading to a victorious line.
But that wasnt against a GM. The GM made me move bad. He pushed so hard that I played out of balance. It is much easier to play clean games against normal strenght players.
That is absolutely not true. GMs consistently make the first or second "best" move. A 1300 comes no where close. Take any 1300 level game on here and let houdini analyze it and you will see what I mean. When I say this, I mean when the game leaves book as well
Maybe you are right, but we are talking about 1300 Fide, which is ca the same strenght as 1500 online. I can see absolutely beautiful chess from 9 year old kids in my club, but they never where 1300 fide, they jumped to 1420-1450 the first time they got fiderating. Those kids can take down a-A-class players, but they must win advantage before the endgame. The masters are usually better in the endgame. And of course, one of those kids , Andreas Tenold, did beat a GM in simultan. The other won drew if I remember right. That draw was either real, or the Gm might have been kind to the little girl.
You have to understand we are talking about someone with true 1300 strength, not someone who is 1300 rated. There is a big difference. Those kids you are talking about hold no relevance here. By true strength, I mean someone who has been 1300 rated for years while playing tournaments. No doubt those kids play beauitful chess. Kids are amazing in this game. But like I said, they arent 1300 strength.
I can agree with you here, the problem is that I am slightly biazed because many of the players in my C-group in the clubchampionship are kids. The lowrated adults in the group are stronger too, because they score their rating aginst very underrated kids.
Actually there are few adults that is settled on 1300 Fide. Most of they who has been playing a while are between 1500 and 2000. 1300 is a transitrating, a level where most players are passing trough. Because most 1300 s are passing through, and a lot underrated there is not easy to find a real 1300 player. We have only two adult 1300 fide in my club, maybe some more on that level that isnt fiderated yet, and as you know the unrated always are on the way up.
born in 1965 and 1932, I have only met the 1965born player , who I guess is a combackman or started playing very late. He played clean , safe and fine, but developed too slow to survive against a GM.
Prediction: Carlsen will lose title in near future, then win it back
by tkbunny a few minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by dragonair234 4 minutes ago
who likes who in staafff the most staff the ko
by stuzzicadenti 6 minutes ago
I don't know how to play :(
by Equiv 7 minutes ago
How to date Carlsen's sisters
by stuzzicadenti 11 minutes ago
by SanJoaquin 24 minutes ago
1/31/2015 - Ryklis-Ivasyuk, USSR 1982
by TheNewGoat 29 minutes ago
i suck soooooo bad
by nonuggets 30 minutes ago
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
by Nekhemevich 34 minutes ago
by KirbyCake 34 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!