2700s are gods.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
nah but i'm joking of course
Every fifty pages or so, it is helpful to point out to the noobs who fill this thread with nonsense that 2700+ players are the top fifty Grandmasters in the world. When they blunder, and they do, it stems from having been put under serious pressure for several hours by another 2700+ player. Such blunders most often concede an important square.
Conceding a square to a 1300 is about as inconsequential as dropping a bishop to a beginner who doesn't know how the horsey moves.
But what if the 1300 is studying 10'000 hours with a GM coach and knows all Youtube chess videos by heart? Then they must surely win one of 1'000'000'000'000'000'000 games against a 2700!
Official rating depends on the number of official games you have played. A new competition player who is highly experienced and versed in chess may well beat someone who has a much higher number.
GreedyPawnEater wrote:
for example take a 2700 grandmaster like Nakamaura. he is weaker than a strong grandmaster from the past like Bagirov.
Do you have data to support this outlandish claim?
Ken Regan has labored for many years testing this notion. Some of his results are presented in the graph at http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/IPR2600reg4yr.jpg.
GreedyPawnEater wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
GreedyPawnEater wrote:
for example take a 2700 grandmaster like Nakamaura. he is weaker than a strong grandmaster from the past like Bagirov.
Do you have data to support this outlandish claim?
Ken Regan has labored for many years testing this notion. Some of his results are presented in the graph at http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/IPR2600reg4yr.jpg.
it's a well known fact. no need for years of "laboring".
There are many "known" facts that are demonstrably false when subjected to actual objective testing. This "fact" is among them.
Fact: GPE is unable to reason.
Bonny-Rotten wrote:
Fact: GPE is unable to reason.
I'm beginning to see that.
GreedyPawnEater wrote:
the problem is in the reasoning. no need to proof something which is obvious to everybody. i wonder where did this guy went wrong and why wasted years of his life.
He believes in evidence.
Reading the last few pages of this thread, it's clear there are no statisticians posting....
First of all, and I consider this an obvious point, the odds are never zero. If an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, Carlsen would not win 100% of the games.
To answer the question about the 1300 player vs the 2700 player: The rating system is based on a normal probability curve with a standard deviation of 200√2, which is about 283. Given that, when a 2700 player and a 1300 player do battle, the 2700 player should score 99.999962%. So, if they play 2.7 million games, the 1300 player can be expected to get one point.
OBIT wrote:
Reading the last few pages of this thread, it's clear there are no statisticians posting....
First of all, and I consider this an obvious point, the odds are never zero. If an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, Carlsen would not win 100% of the games.
To answer the question about the 1300 player vs the 2700 player: The rating system is based on a normal probability curve with a standard deviation of 200√2, which is about 283. Given that, when a 2700 player and a 1300 player do battle, the 2700 player should score 99.999962%. So, if they play 2.7 million games, the 1300 player can be expected to get one point.
We produced the actual odds agout 2000 posts back. Your number is far too optimistic on behalf of the weaker player.
The inverse of your number is 0.000038. The correct number has something along the lines of forty zeros after the decimal.
You are right, however, that the odds are not zero.
It was also noted more than 1500 posts ago that actual tournament data reveals that the higher rated player underperforms when the Elo difference is less than 500. Above 500, however, the higher rated player tends to overperform.
So, the actual odds based on Elo's system (which you have misrepresented) are too optimistic for the 1300.
GreedyPawnEater написал:
OBIT wrote:
Reading the last few pages of this thread, it's clear there are no statisticians posting....
First of all, and I consider this an obvious point, the odds are never zero. If an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, Carlsen would not win 100% of the games.
To answer the question about the 1300 player vs the 2700 player: The rating system is based on a normal probability curve with a standard deviation of 200√2, which is about 283. Given that, when a 2700 player and a 1300 player do battle, the 2700 player should score 99.999962%. So, if they play 2.7 million games, the 1300 player can be expected to get one point.
probably you have skipped the math classes at school. if you hadnt you would have known that 200/2= 100. i dont know how you got the other numbers but they are also wrong. 1300 player should beat 2700 player at least once per 1000 games.
That's not 200/2, it's 200 times the square root of two. It's not obvious unless you look closely.
In a series of games where two of them plays repetitively,thus making 1300 elo to see how 2700 elo dude plays;1300 elo could beat after some games,indeed.You get to learn to beat while you getting beaten.
In a series of games, the 1300 might eventually get fourteen moves deep into book. But, realising how the 1300 was practicing the art of imitation, the 2700 would lure the 1300 into a discarded book line where the weaker player is dead lost.
Kasparovunyegeni wrote:
In a series of games where two of them plays repetitively,thus making 1300 elo to see how 2700 elo dude plays;1300 elo could beat after some games,indeed.You get to learn to beat while you getting beaten.
PALATR. 
Of course the 1300 has chances. One of them, maybe, if the 1300 rated is actually far better than 1300, and he/she only played until he/she get the rating 1300 at the time. Or maybe at the time the 2700's mind is wreak havoc, psychologically or phisiologically, that makes him blunder a lot. Or maybe the 2700 let the 1300 beat him/her by any means. Etc etc. Who knows for sure?
What is the bottomlevel of a 2700, and what is the toplevel of a 1300?
I guess some 2700 has worse bottomlevel than the rest of the bunch, but where is it? Maybe some has 2500, some 2300 and someone even lower? like???
The toplevel of a brilliant 1300 I estimate at ca 2000 fide. The toplevel of a boring 1300 is ca 1500-1700fide.
If the 2700 play at his lousiest at 2200, and the 1300 plays at 2050, still the 2700 will win.
So the 1300 wont make it, he has to improve his toplevel to above 2300, and that is too much.
I doubt a 1300 would ever do it EVER.