Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 14 days ago · Quote · #3041

    DjonniDerevnja

    yureesystem wrote:

    DjonniDerevnja wrote:

    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.

  • 14 days ago · Quote · #3042

    mcmodern

    It is not impossible, but we will not see it for a long long time.

  • 13 days ago · Quote · #3043

    BMeck

    mcmodern wrote:

    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? 

  • 13 days ago · Quote · #3044

    mcmodern

    BMeck wrote:
    mcmodern wrote:

    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.

  • 13 days ago · Quote · #3045

    Ziryab

    mcmodern wrote:

    It is not impossible, but we will not see it for a long long time.

    It could happen today, and again tomorrow. But once in a million years still beats the odds.

  • 13 days ago · Quote · #3046

    BMeck

    mcmodern wrote:
    BMeck wrote:
    mcmodern wrote:

    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.

    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. 

  • 13 days ago · Quote · #3047

    richie_and_oprah

    BMeck wrote:
    mcmodern wrote:
    BMeck wrote:
    mcmodern wrote:

    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.

    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. 

  • 13 days ago · Quote · #3048

    mcmodern

    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.

  • 13 days ago · Quote · #3049

    BMeck

    mcmodern wrote:

    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.

  • 13 days ago · Quote · #3050

    carsinio

    Did that diving guy break his neck?

  • 13 days ago · Quote · #3051

    didibrian

    A person rated 200 points higher than another person has around 75% of winning

  • 13 days ago · Quote · #3052

    didibrian

    So either 0.(25^-7) or 25^-7%


Back to Top

Post your reply: