Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2821

    leiph18

    But yes, lets say lots of pieces are traded early or the opponent is always making blunders, then yes you can even have a perfect game.

    But if the players are evenly matched (and the pieces aren't traded off quickly) there will be a lot of bad moves.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2822

    Bearpeter

    I like fiction to...

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2823

    DjonniDerevnja

    leiph18 wrote:

    Once Fritz scored my game as having zero errors.

    Doesn't mean much. I eventually lost a pawn and the game.

    A few inaccuracies and 1 blunder is more like GM level play. 1300, held to the same standard, is more like >50% of the moves are inaccuracies and there are multiple game losing blunders.

    I made computeranalyze in a game against 1500 online. In this game, which he won, your estimations is a lot more accurate than mine. The inaccuracies is not far from 50%. It was equal before my final blunder.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2824

    DjonniDerevnja

    leiph18 wrote:

    Yes, either you played as a GM or I don't put much faith in the chess.com computer analysis :)

    How long does chess.com analyze a game anyway? Did you know some people put their game into their personal computer and let the engine analyze all night?

    They analyze maybe 7 minutes and tells me they have 2500 strenght. If thats true we can guess that the overnightanalyzes somebody does is well above 3000.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2825

    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.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2826

    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

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2827

    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.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2828

    Jion_Wansu

    To the original post: Yes!

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2829

    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.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2830

    Nekhemevich

    with great skill and profundity :D tak.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2831

    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.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2832

    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.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #2833

    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. 

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #2834

    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

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #2835

    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?

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #2836

    Ziryab

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


Back to Top

Post your reply: