Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 13 hours ago · Quote · #2801

    leiph18

    If it's just those random unexplainable errors, then it seems there would be the same chance that a 1300 would beat a 2500, 2600, 2700, etc. because it's not due to any quality of knowledge or skill the individual has, but on these errors that seem to happen on their own.

  • 12 hours ago · Quote · #2802

    Ziryab

    When I, as a mere 1700, have dropped a piece against a 1300, I have usually come back to win.

  • 12 hours ago · Quote · #2803

    leiph18

    As a 1300 I won a queen for a knight against an expert and lost. It was a 20 minute game but still...

  • 8 hours ago · Quote · #2804

    denz1980

    i think if the new player join in chess.com but its rating is higer than 2700 in outside it can be...

  • 20 minutes ago · Quote · #2805

    OBIT

    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...

     

    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%.   

  • 8 minutes ago · Quote · #2806

    DjonniDerevnja

    OBIT wrote:

    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...

     

    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.

  • a few minutes ago · Quote · #2807

    leiph18

    Once Fritz scored my game as having zero errors.

    Doesn't mean much. I eventually lost a pawn and the game.

    A few inaccuracies and 1 blunder is more like GM level play. 1300, held to the same standard, is more like 50% of the moves are inaccuracies and multiple game losing blunders.


Back to Top

Post your reply: