This thread will last as long as people who fail to understand the difference between incredibly unlikely and impossible. So forever......
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
DavidPeters2 wrote:
This thread will last as long as people who fail to understand the difference between incredibly unlikely and impossible. So forever......
-----
Now THAT is unlikely.
ModestAndPolite wrote:
Can we stop this stupid "discussion" now?
There is a finite, extremely small chance that a 1300 player could take the full point from a 2700 player due to some weird and unlikely circumstances.
In real life the possibility is so tiny that we might as well consider it impossible.
If humans were consistant like machines that would be true, odds would be as calculated.
Humans are not consistant, thus unusual events while still extremely unlikely are not impossible. People do drugs, drink heavy, not sleep at night, get sick, etc. On other end a 1300 player because of lazy rather than poor can try really hard at times.
How many recorded games have been played between 1300 level players and 2700 players in the last 50 years? If less than a million then not possible to say for sure that chance is higher than 1 in a million.
We consider winning million dollar lottery not impossible, yet chance is much higher than 1 in a millon.
I don't think 2700 players commonly play against 1300 players.
When they do, I expect some of 2700 players to be overconfident and thus play at more like 2500- level. I expect some of the 1300 players to think this is the game of their lifetime and thus try harder and play at 1500+ level. Throw in some extra factors, eg 1300 player has nice cleavage and unbuttoned shirt, and while still absurdly unlikely, can still be more likely than winning a lottery.
alexm2310 wrote:
mdinnerspace I understand your argument, you've stated it a good few times now, each iteration with more arrogance and condescension than the last. I still think you could've just said "no" and saved yourself a lot of time. I don't believe the issue others have with your argument is one of understanding, it's more one of refusal to adopt your perspective. It's only the Internet after all, don't get your hopes up.
No, his logic is poor. Nothing to do with perspective. See here:
mdinnerspace wrote:
it is a wrong conclusion to make that any possible result is a possibilty.
He (apparently) thinks science fiction (like multiverse) is necessary to claim every possible result is a possibility. He believes events become more rare and even impossible (!) due to arbitrary values placed on them by humans e.g. whether a pattern is easily recognizable, or whether a person wants an event to happen.
davidsheep wrote:
We consider winning million dollar lottery not impossible, yet chance is much higher than 1 in a millon.
It's true that someone always wins the lottery eventually but personally I consider it an idiot tax. And the answer to the OP is just no. I can't believe 5000 opinions have been aired in this thread.
Strangemover wrote:
davidsheep wrote:
We consider winning million dollar lottery not impossible, yet chance is much higher than 1 in a millon.
It's true that someone always wins the lottery eventually but personally I consider it an idiot tax. And the answer to the OP is just no. I can't believe 5000 opinions have been aired in this thread.
Less than 10 reasonable opinions. Many can't tell the difference between close to zero and zero... like you. So this adds a few dozen more when people bother to explain it for the 100th time.
Strange mover, may I direct you to my previous post #4992?
Five effing thousand
DavidPeters2 wrote:
This thread will last as long as people who fail to understand the difference between incredibly unlikely and impossible. So forever......
I fail to understand.
Forever is a long time.
All things will end with maybe one exception. ..
this thread!
Yes I see that the odds are not zero but very close to zero. Just close enough to zero to register as zero on my radar.
davidsheep wrote:
ModestAndPolite wrote:
Can we stop this stupid "discussion" now?
There is a finite, extremely small chance that a 1300 player could take the full point from a 2700 player due to some weird and unlikely circumstances.
In real life the possibility is so tiny that we might as well consider it impossible.
If humans were consistant like machines that would be true, odds would be as calculated.
Humans are not consistant, thus unusual events while still extremely unlikely are not impossible. People do drugs, drink heavy, not sleep at night, get sick, etc. On other end a 1300 player because of lazy rather than poor can try really hard at times.
How many recorded games have been played between 1300 level players and 2700 players in the last 50 years? If less than a million then not possible to say for sure that chance is higher than 1 in a million.
Here is a scenario :
That 1300 makes his best tournament ever. The 2700 played terrible the previous day, losing to a 2400 prodigy. He was so mad at himself that he couldnt sleep at night, and came to the board very tired. At move 12 the 1300 thought for a long time. 10 minutes, 20, 30, 35, and the GM rested his head on his arms on the table. The eyes closed and he fell asleep, and lost on time.
Mdinner 'I fail to understand'. Finally you speak sense ☺
Yep. Guilty as charged.
I fail to understand illogical rational.
What can I do....
What can I say...
it's an ugly job....
but somebody must carry the banner of sanity.
Blimey, looks like you have run out of semi-plausible arguments. Maybe this thread will die
This thread is so popular, with everyone contributing a made up scenario how the 1300 could win, I suggest chess. com. offer a 1 month free subscription to the most outrageous, the most bodacious and the least likely possibility of the 1300 winning. With over 5000 posts, a few imaginative scenarios have been put forward, but come on, we can do better than the drunken hypothesis. Use your imagination. Electronic, futuristic devices by example. International spies, defectors, sex scandals in government. The examples thus far have been quite boring. We can do much better.
DavidPeters2 wrote:
Five effing thousand
----
Meta
Oh mdinner, your recent failure to address anything is disappointing
We dont need to stop . This tread can survive for milleniums.That little dream can live on. One woman was once asked what are the chanses for you meeting a dinosaur? She answered "fifty-fifty. either I meet him, or i dont".