Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 3 months ago · Quote · #2821

    DjonniDerevnja

    leiph18 wrote:

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #2822

    BMeck

    DjonniDerevnja wrote:
    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.

    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

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #2823

    forrie

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #2824

    Jion_Wansu

    To the original post: Yes!

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #2825

    DjonniDerevnja

    BMeck wrote:
    DjonniDerevnja wrote:
    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.

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #2826

    Nekhemevich

    with great skill and profundity :D tak.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #2827

    Ammann_1

    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...

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #2828

    BMeck

    DjonniDerevnja wrote:
    BMeck wrote:
    DjonniDerevnja wrote:
    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.

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #2829

    DjonniDerevnja

    BMeck wrote:
    DjonniDerevnja wrote:
    BMeck wrote:
    DjonniDerevnja wrote:
    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.

    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.

    http://www.nordstrandsjakk.no/?page_id=1108

    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. 

  • 8 weeks ago · Quote · #2830

    mauve_penguin

    RetiFan wrote:

    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

  • 8 weeks ago · Quote · #2831

    btickler

    mauve_penguin wrote:
    RetiFan wrote:

    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?

  • 8 weeks ago · Quote · #2832

    Ziryab

    Anybody can beat anybody when the thinker behind the moves is silicon.

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #2833

    yes_dear

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #2834

    bb_gum234

    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.

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #2835

    tieics

    I think in a serious game a 2500 player hardly has a real  chance to beat a 2700 super GM.

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #2836

    Elubas

    I mean, Sam Sevian just beat Wesley So and he's extremely close to 2800.

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #2837

    bb_gum234

    Elubas wrote:

    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 Laughing

    Remember this kid is still just 14!

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #2838

    DjonniDerevnja

    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.)

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #2839

    bb_gum234

    DjonniDerevnja wrote:

    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.

  • 5 days ago · Quote · #2840

    DjonniDerevnja

    bb_gum234 wrote:
    DjonniDerevnja wrote:

    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.


Back to Top

Post your reply: