In reno this past easter weekend a player rated 841 beat a 2000 player. And it wasnt by forfeit.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
I could see this happening if the GM didn't understand the time control, Magnus style... http://theweekinchess.com/chessnews/events/norway-chess-2015/carlsen-loses-on-time-in-a-winning-positon-in-norway-chess-round-1
I heard about 1500 beating a 2100 player despite being down a rook because the 2100 thought he got another hour after move 40- turns out he didn't, so when the time ran out, he lost.
You're all being quite ignorant of the abilities of a 2700.
A 2000 losing to a 841 (established) ? is remotely possible.
The debate is about an established 1300 playing a 2700. Not some fantasy scenario where the 1300 in fact possess the skills of 2200.
You all don't comprehend the skill level of 2700.
It's like any of you running a 100 meter vs Hussain Bolt. You could put him in a sack and he'd still win.
iziani wrote:
mdinnerspace wrote:
Water will never be pure gold.
A 1300 will never win vs a 2700.. And please stop with the what if scenarios of the 2700 having a heart attack and dying during the game.
what about if the 2700 drunk?
Vodka or whiskey? A tab of LSD with no sleep for a week. His wife just left him so he hasn't eaten in days. Just got off the airplane from a 12 hour flight and had to run to the tournament because he's broke.
2700 still wins every time.
In a world where the kardashians are looked upn as role models, and bruce jenner is considered "brave and courageous" anything is possible.
Jeez, another idiot postulating if a betting fix were in place. You could fill a 1000 pages with 'what ifs'.
"A 2000 losing to a 841 (established) ? is remotely possible."
If that's possible, why artificially make a slightly higher rating discrepancy impossible? Where is the justification other than your admiration of 2700s?
"You all don't comprehend the skill level of 2700."
The 2700 is extremely good, therefore extremely hard to beat.
Please stop with that infinite monkey theorem lol.
It is true that if the monkey and Carlsen were granted eternal life and played games without stopping, the monkey (playing only random moves) would eventually win (assuming Carlsen doesn't actually solve chess , or he does but it is not a draw).
But the average time elapsed before the first monkey win is very likely to be something like 10^(10^n) years with n big...
Elubas wrote:
"A 2000 losing to a 841 (established) ? is remotely possible."
If that's possible, why artificially make a slightly higher rating discrepancy impossible? Where is the justification other than your admiration of 2700s?
"You all don't comprehend the skill level of 2700."
The 2700 is extremely good, therefore extremely hard to beat.
Please stop with that infinite monkey theorem lol.
It is true that if the monkey and Carlsen were granted eternal life and played games without stopping, the monkey (playing only random moves) would eventually win (assuming Carlsen doesn't actually solve chess , or he does but it is not a draw).
But the average time elapsed before the first monkey win is very likely to be something like 10^(10^n) years with n big...
We don't even really disagree, do we.
Yes
We are back where it all began, full circle.
Mathematics proves it so,
common sense says absolutely not.
Time to begin anew and once and for all solve the conundrum.
Water will never be pure gold.
A 1300 will never win vs a 2700.. And please stop with the what if scenarios of the 2700 having a heart attack and dying during the game.