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

"I did respond to what he was trying to say. Look directly above the part of my post that you quoted. Jesus Christ dude."

It's just something to do in general. Not necessarily just this time. It's actually possible, that certain principles can be applied to multiple situations. Since arguments often come out of pedantry, I thought it was useful to point it out, even if you did reply to what he was trying to say. But of course, that's inconceivable to you.

"Are you really this fucking stupid? This argument started because I said I don't think kids learn 

FASTER THAN ADULTS

HAVING MORE TIME TO LEARN SOMETHING

AND USING IT 

IS NOT 

LEARNING

FASTER

YOU

FUCKING

MORON"

Right... which, once again, is why I said I wanted to only focus on the non-free-time factors. That's what you wanted, right? That's what controlling for free time means. Agreeing with you is being a moron apparently? :)

Oh, I see. I'm coming into this in the middle, sorry. I think most people would disagree with you that children don't learn faster. I think I saw some argument about how an adult would learn language faster than an infant or toddler. Well sure. But faster than a 5 or 7 year old?

Anyway, you don't have to respond to me too.

Well, adding pedantic comments can often detract from one's post. Especially when it happens many times. You've done that many times here; I was just giving an example. No, I don't really think it's crazy for me to think that. When you're focused on unimportant details you spring up issues that don't need to be sprung up, and it's not ideal. That's all.

So, yes, it's possible to fully address someone's post and be pedantic, but it's certainly not directing the focus on the person's content as effectively.

I could make an argument about kids learning faster/slower, and then include a paragraph about why bananas are healthy. I wouldn't be wrong, but it wouldn't be worth including.

My thought here. You might beat him if he has been drinking.

But you already distilled the correctness of what he said by figuring out what he meant. So it's all about, what distilling will actually help the discussion to any decent degree. We could correct tiny grammatical mistakes too, which would slightly help clarity, but the cost of pointing it out would probably outweigh the benefits.

"I'll warn you in advance that we are no longer arguing because it has been resolved in my favour."

I think you just didn't know what "controlling for free time" actually meant.

"Ah, I see. So in an argument, about a relevant detail.. my pointing out that a statement was actually not strictly true... is the equivalent to dropping a random fact about bananas. 

You really are complete fucked in the head aren't you? Like this is seriously how you think?"

No, not completely equivalent. It's just meant, like analogies are, to show what can happen when you apply a certain concept to a certain point. Of course it's not exact, but it's supposed to give you some idea of what I'm talking about, which it did. Not crazy at all.

Was it really that relevant? Would it have been hard to further the discussion without that point? I personally say no, frankly, but perhaps that's another point of disagreement :) We can raise a new thread for that one perhaps :)

But it pretty clearly showed the idea of relevance. Even if it took it to a very different degree.

But I wasn't saying stupid things in the first place, so your statement doesn't make much sense.

Hmm. So you're saying I can't be an NM because you need intelligence to be one, yet if you go one class lower, expert, suddenly you don't need much intelligence to be one? I might be misunderstanding you but you seem to be running into some strange inconsistencies in your argument.

I wouldn't call them opposites, but like I said, that's a whole other debate I guess :)

"Yeh I'm just trying to insult you."

Ah, saying something stupid while calling someone stupid. Just remember that you want to take your time before insulting someone's intelligence, since it'll look really ironic if you do something stupid while doing so :)

I think the chances of a 1300 beating a 2700 assuming they are focusing is 1 in 1 novemnonagintillion or really really really really really low

One thing you have to consider is mouse slips. Probably the faster the time control the more chances this has of happening. It would probably take a REALLY bad one or multiple.

Blackavar, your opinions/conclusions don't have any real evidence backing them yet you point to them as proof of your argument. For example "give a 5 year old a 25 year Olds brain and he will improve faster than a normal 5 year old. This directly disputes the child learning faster theory"(this is paraphrased from your posts). How exactly does it dispute it? Do you have proof of this? Did it actually happen somewhere with significant results? I assume not, so I can just as easily say give a 25 year old a 5 year Olds brain and he will improve faster than he would otherwise. That directly disputes your dispute. Argument over, right?

Also regarding players starting late who went on to become GM, there isn't any that I can think of. The closest thing would be blackburne who started at 18 and went on to become one of the world's best players. But that was long before they had GM titles.

There are a 1000+ GM'S world wide. What age is starting late. 20? I am willing to wager more than a few started after 16 and most decidedly after 20.

i timed out a 2300 last week and allowed the draw to be a gentleman i had 7 mins he had like 5 seconds with no pieces taken in a closed position. if it wasnt a simul i would have gobbled the points but it was a simul and everyone else was point gobbling him so i took the hi road. then he refused my draw the next game.

Point gobbling? Are simuls rated?

There's an IM who started at 14 but didn't play seriously until 17. And blackburne started at 18 and became a top player in the world. But that was before GM titles.