11385 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!
Ed, here you highlighted a problem for the higher rated: "When you higher rated it is your job to win, put pressure the in position and not blunder; a lapse in concentrate can make the differance from winning or losing."
A higher rated player excpects to win, and plays for the win, even when he is slightly worse. That mindset can be to offensive and weaken his defence. If he met his equal he wouldnt necessarily play for victory standing slightly worse. He might give it all to save a draw. For an 1800 it is outside the main ideas to save a draw against an unrated.
I agree with most what you wrote, but "slightly worse", it depends on the position, if low rated player has dangerous kingside attack , first defended and when you have a chance counter-attack, this happen me to against a talent teenage girl, she was rated 1400 uscf, she beat one expert and third round had to played her, she was white and gain a large advantage from the opening and had a powerful attack, she miss played her attack and allow me to counter-attack and I won. In those circumstance one needs to hold tight and look for oppotunities, a lot players just blunder when they being press and crumb.
That talented 1400-girl. It reminds me of a rapidgame I had at similar rating against a Fide 1937. I had outplayed him with a lucky powerful opening and he was close to resign in move 23, but then I hesitated and did one not hardpressing move. He punished me, came back, got counterplay an won in the end. I was happy that I managed to play good in 23 moves, and thought next time I can do well in 28, later 37 and with more and more practicing 100 fine moves can be possible. Rapidgames are very difficult for me to play, because I have not the same level of automation as the experienced players.
It is not impossible, but we will not see it for a long long time.
That does not make any sense. What would account for the average strength of a 1300 increasing while the average strength of a 2700 decreasing over time?
What I mean is that if you try say for a trillion times, you might hit that one time. This event has a probability of > 0, so if you try enough, it will happen, it just won't happen anytime soon.
It could happen today, and again tomorrow. But once in a million years still beats the odds.
Anything is, theoretically, possible when it comes down to it. But saying it wont happen for a long time still doesnt make sense. The games are independent of one another. Given the problem, the 1300 has the same probability to win the first game that he or she does the billionth.
Except in chess, the single event (a game) allows people to gain knowledge and thus does affect future probabilities. So, if 1300 keeps playing 2700 their odds of winning increase because their info increases. Random number theory does not apply.
So, if 1300 keeps playing 2700 their odds of winning increase because their info increases.
Umm in that case, they would not be 1300 anymore right? 1300 is a relative strength, if the player knowledge improves, they would not be 1300. The best chance for this to happen would be some very young and talented player, who is very under rated, maybe someone like Magnus or Wei Yi when they are about 8 or 9 or maybe even younger, but are rated 1300. I know Wei Yi played in Chinese pro league when was 8 or 9, so he was not 1300 at that age.
"1300 is a relative strength, if the player knowledge improves, they would not be 1300."
That is what I meant by "Given the problem." Earlier in the thread (I dont expect to read it) we settled on the 1300 player being a true 1300. Meaning his or her playing strength is always 1300.
Did that diving guy break his neck?
A person rated 200 points higher than another person has around 75% of winning
So either 0.(25^-7) or 25^-7%
Kasparov bad role model for others
by macer75 a few minutes ago
7/5/2015 - Lasker - Alekhine, London 1913
by glsmith 3 minutes ago
I want to improve should I quit playing blitz?
by wonderballer 4 minutes ago
Mangus lost in Norway blitz?
by Martin_Stahl 8 minutes ago
Hurt/Heal World Chess Champions
by macer75 10 minutes ago
i am really getting bored of chess what should i do
by Sasha136 11 minutes ago
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE? 1800+
by Zigwurst 15 minutes ago
Giving up Bishop and Rook for Checkmate
by blameitontheknight 15 minutes ago
Admins: Spam alert, you may wish to check this
by RonaldJosephCote 16 minutes ago
In Memory of knightspawn5
by trysts 28 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!