10760 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!
Like I said, I mean held to the same standards as the GM.
Think of it this way, if the 1300 only makes 4 or 5 non-best moves in a whole game, what separates players from 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, etc?
It is both the number of errors, but also the size of the errors. A 1300 maybe make a totally loosing error in 50% of the games (and some minor errors). A 2200 usually doesnt make big errors, only small ones, and of course not so many.
A 5 error game is obviously among the better ones from a 1300, usually there are more errors, but not always.
In otb-tournaments at my best I do beat players rated 700 above me, but of course I usually loose to them. (Best victory 1600 Norwegian-elo /1800 fide when I was 878 N-elo). Actually I usually am in big trouble meeting 700 above.
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.
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
what happens in our country is that immigrants from other African countries with excellent chess skills and no official rating, comes and play in tournaments with 1200 provisional rating. The one person I lost against is now 1950 already and just 2 years ago was near 1300. He told me 2 years ago that he is a petrol pump attendant. Unfortunate that so many talent is lost in Africa because of politics and corruption.
To the original post: Yes!
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.
with great skill and profundity :D tak.
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.
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.
Of course, I'm talking about games when both players want to win.
I also don't buy %0 percent chance, because I think I can get a win against a Boris Gelfand type blunder.
see FaceBook's(the member) win against FM kulinarist. FaceBook is 1300 and FM Kulinarist is 2700
You mean the FM Kulinarist recently banned for cheating and this 1300 who is also obviously cheating?
Anybody can beat anybody when the thinker behind the moves is silicon.
Unrated 1|0 game.
There is no lower form of trash chess. After 8 beers and losing the will to play well, strong players open their unrated seek to any rating.
I think in a serious game a 2500 player hardly has a real chance to beat a 2700 super GM.
I mean, Sam Sevian just beat Wesley So and he's extremely close to 2800.
Yeah, but, improving junior players are a##holes like that
Remember this kid is still just 14!
What chance does a 1300 have? Actually he might be skilled in the opening, and maybe he have a special one where he can go on the line in 20 moves. Then the GM can make an absolute terrible blunder, and the 1300 can have the brightest day of his life, seeing everything. The main 1300-problem is they dont see things, and it happens all the time, maybe 20 times in a game, but occasionally there are games where they are more clearsighted. The second 1300problem is wrong desicions, what to do can often be decided with the tip of a coin, and they might as well choose the right path. The third problem is calculation, maybe the do it right 70% of the time, and thet can actually go the right way too, through a whole game.
Whats problem nr 4. 5. 6,.....?
(I am a 1400 myself now, and when I get games analyzed, winning games too, I am shocked over how many chances I misses because of not seeing.)
What chance does a 1300 have? Actually he might be skilled in the opening, and maybe he have a special one where he can go on the line in 20 moves.
Unfortunately for that case, a favorite practice of GMs when facing anyone below 2200 seems to be to play weird stuff. Or they will play book... for 5 or 10 moves, then deviate into weird sidelines. Usually this means they have a winning position just a few moves later heh.
Thats true. But the GM has a choice. He knows that the 1300, who has a 2500 openingline, will loose his extra 1200 power on the first sidestep. The GM can sidestep it fast, and win fast, or he can let him play his favouriteline, to allow a more interesting game.
I played a simultan vs GM Vladimir Georgiev. I did a little inaccuracy in move ten, and he punished me immidiately, and slowly came two pawns ahead and won. He followed the mainline. I was the one that slipped outside.
GM against 1300 is like the cat playing with the mouse. The cat can be too playful and careless, but when it happens the cat usually can get down to basics and win it anyway. Usually.
beccoming a staff member.
by HessianWarrior 7 minutes ago
by kleelof 9 minutes ago
4/25/2015 - A. K. - Christian Stevens, 2007
by mieczyslaw 9 minutes ago
Building my own clock
by b0bnolan 18 minutes ago
Gashimov performance ratings
by Reb 19 minutes ago
SCID for MAC
by roryduffy8 20 minutes ago
Seeking wise and somewhat knowledgeable friend(s)
by X_PLAYER_J_X 21 minutes ago
Chess rating system
by JoeyKTrombone 21 minutes ago
Sicilian players needed for analysis
by X_PLAYER_J_X 27 minutes ago
Magnus Carlsen vs. Mariya Muzychuk
by HilarioFJunior 31 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!