https://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1505997325
This is the link to the game I played.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
+2100s are fish! This guy's only win against a strong opponent (+2000) happened when his opponent was banned in the middle of the game!
Live Chess - Standard
2253
| Highest: | 2272 (Feb 28, 2015) |
|---|---|
| Best Win: | 2219 (wizard1001001) |
| Avg. Opp.: | 1641 |
| Total Games: | 35 (25 W/ 2 L / 8 D) |
SmyslovFan wrote:
+2100s are fish! This guy's only win against a strong opponent (+2000) happened when his opponent was banned in the middle of the game!
Live Chess - Standard
Highest: 2272 (Feb 28, 2015) Best Win: 2219 (wizard1001001) Avg. Opp.: 1641 Total Games: 35 (25 W/ 2 L / 8 D)2253
wizards account was closed for cheating....
Elubas wrote:
"It is not the same question as to simulate with computers a game between a 1300 player and a 2700 player, because in that case the answer is probably that the algorithm that plays at a 2700 level cannot be beaten by an algorithm that plays at a 1300 level."
This is a really good observation! I'd add that, well, we should explore how we define terms like "1300" and "2700" in the context of chess. It's tricky because such numbers are constant numbers, but we use them to describe non-constant humans! We could accept that when Kasparov loses to a 2600 let's say, the 2600 is still not better than him, yet we can still believe that Kasparov could lose to someone like that.
I think when we are saying a word like "2700," we're saying something along the lines of, "A level of skill and understanding good enough to have such and such probabilities to win against certain people." Because we don't find it to be a contradiction when a 2700 loses to someone lower than 2700. We would say, in general the 2700 is the better player, but this time he wasn't able to play well enough, even if generally we would expect him to. But he's a human, of course.
So I think the essence of these terms, as we use them, are about probability in the first place. We're never talking about a guaranteed number of blunders or what have you per game, but more like an average. I think it's inevitable to talk about probabilities when you have humans involved.
Let's cut the bull crap - and the stupid dithering like this. 2700 humans win against 1300 every single time. It doesn't matter if they have a bad day or the 1300 player is playing out of his skin compared with his previous best. I am terrible at chess but I don't recall EVER having lost to a 1300 player here in blitz. So how would it be for a 2700 rated player? C'mon. Now....how do I get out of receiving posts about this silly thread?
It has mathematically been proven that there is 0.0000000 chanch. Long live this thread for the 1300's that fantasize otherwise.
It might be possible in Backgammon but in a 21 point World Championship match against the reigning world Backgammon champion your chances would be about the same as in chess. .0001%.
mdinnerspace wrote:
It has mathematically been proven that there is 0.0000000 chanch. Long live this thread for the 1300's that fantasize otherwise.
No such thing has been mathematically proven, nor is it possible to mathematically prove any such thing, although the probability does look about right.
Scrumpymanjack wrote:
Elubas wrote:
"It is not the same question as to simulate with computers a game between a 1300 player and a 2700 player, because in that case the answer is probably that the algorithm that plays at a 2700 level cannot be beaten by an algorithm that plays at a 1300 level."
This is a really good observation! I'd add that, well, we should explore how we define terms like "1300" and "2700" in the context of chess. It's tricky because such numbers are constant numbers, but we use them to describe non-constant humans! We could accept that when Kasparov loses to a 2600 let's say, the 2600 is still not better than him, yet we can still believe that Kasparov could lose to someone like that.
I think when we are saying a word like "2700," we're saying something along the lines of, "A level of skill and understanding good enough to have such and such probabilities to win against certain people." Because we don't find it to be a contradiction when a 2700 loses to someone lower than 2700. We would say, in general the 2700 is the better player, but this time he wasn't able to play well enough, even if generally we would expect him to. But he's a human, of course.
So I think the essence of these terms, as we use them, are about probability in the first place. We're never talking about a guaranteed number of blunders or what have you per game, but more like an average. I think it's inevitable to talk about probabilities when you have humans involved.
I am terrible at chess but I don't recall EVER having lost to a 1300 player here in blitz. So how would it be for a 2700 rated player?
Logically it would be even more unlikely for the 2700 to lose. Really, really, really unlikely.
Morphysrevenges wrote:
YES!! If they play a large enough number of games the 1300 will eventually win or draw a game. Gawd - let this thread die............................
Infinite monkey theorem:
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
Is there a mathematical proof for this theorem?
Lets say that the chances for making a good move after the known opening (6 moves) for a 1300 is 50%,
2 good moves, 25 %
3 good moves, 12 %
4 good 6%, 5 3%, 6, 1.5 %, 7 0,75, 8 0,375, 9 0,2, 10 0,1,
11 0,05
If he knows the opening 6 moves a 1300 might have a 0,05 % chance for playing a fantastic game up to move 17.
The Super GM might have 50% chance for playing a perfect game up to move 17.
So, it is close to impossible to beat that super GM. Close to impossible, but not exactly absolutely impossible. Maybe its like winning 30 millions in the lottery and get struck twice by the lightening?
By the way. Miracles happen . There was a man that wasnt lucky with girls. One day he won a fortune, the next day he got a superbeautiful girlfriend. 2 miracles in two days!!
About luck-calculation. A Young woman once was asked about the chances for her meeting a dinosaur. "fifty-fifty" she answered. Eihter I will meet one, or I will not.
Humans make mistakes, so maybe 1/1000 matches you'd win and with a couple draws. Now try doing that against a 2700 chess engine.
Can someone please help me understand what the rating equates to: ELO? How do I convert to BCF?
Ziryab wrote:
Is there a mathematical proof for this theorem?
...
Follow your very own advice, Ziryab, and use google.
These so called 'proofs' are based on believing an assumption to to 'true'. Mathematical theorems of infinity and anything is possible are delusional.
People actually believe the monkey / typewriter / Shakespeare is possible. It is not. To have any sense you have to 1st believe in infinite universes and infinite time. That given, the reality is it will never happen.
Informative link given by hp...
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.
mdinnerspace wrote:
but what if the gm shits his pants ?
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.
Elubas wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Is there a mathematical proof for this theorem?
...
Follow your very own advice, Ziryab, and use google.
Point taken.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3013959.stm
mdinnerspace wrote:
These so called 'proofs' are based on believing an assumption to to 'true'. Mathematical theorems of infinity and anything is possible are delusional.
People actually believe the monkey / typewriter / Shakespeare is possible. It is not. To have any sense you have to 1st believe in infinite universes and infinite time. That given, the reality is it will never happen.
You can't know that.
This win was a blitz game of chess. 3 minutes. I will give you the link to it. He resigned against me.