Our 1st !
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
Who will be 2nd ?
Shakespeare anybody?
The results about monkey and typewritter doesn't require infinite. You can use the weak law of large numbers and derive some explicit bound
Has every possibility really been tried there (the whole thread is too long to read)?
1300 can win if:
-the match is fixed
-1300 is Kasparov in disguise
When was the last time a 2700 faced a 1300?
There is probably barely any games with such a rating gap, even in simula
There is probably barely any games with such a rating gap, even in simula
Colin20G wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:
Just checking in after four years, any progress?
Do you actually hope anything?
Morbid curiosity. It's the best I can come up with any more.
I like it.
Morbid curiosity.
morbid curiosity
When curiosity and common sense collide: Enquiring further about a subject when you know you really don't want to know the answer
That is what people think in an airplane which is about to crash.
DrSpudnik wrote:
Just checking in after four years, any progress?
no
XDave121X wrote:
When was the last time a 2700 faced a 1300?
There is probably barely any games with such a rating gap, even in simula
There is probably barely any games with such a rating gap, even in simula
This rating-gap meeting is possible in open swiss tournaments thats not classdivided, where they usually split the startlist on the middle in round 1. The toprated will meet the toprated in the bottomhalf. I n Politiken Cup 2015 the bottom half was strong, so I guess No 1 , met a player ca 1900 rated. If there had been a lot of unrated and lowrated players it would been possible for a 1300 to meet a ca 2700 in round one.
In my first Nordstrand Høstturnering I as 878 N-elo (unrated FIDE)met a 1600 N-elo(1800 fide). This was of course a smaller gap, and my opponent got mated in 78 moves, because his mind wasnt focused on saving the draw. Highrated players sometimes takes to much risk against extremely lowrated ones, and can get punished in a cruel way.
The gap difference is irrelevent to the debate. You can't compare 2000 vs 600 to 1300 vs 2700; both 1400 difference.
The 2700 is 1 of the world's best with a skill level many of you apparantly do not comprehend.
mdinnerspace wrote:
The gap difference is irrelevent to the debate. You can't compare 2000 vs 600 to 1300 vs 2700; both 1400 difference.
The 2700 is 1 of the world's best with a skill level many of you apparantly do not comprehend.
On the April 2016 rating list, 2700+ is the top 39 players. Wei Yi is the weakest of this group.
In my book, if you're #39 you qualify as 1 of the world's best.
This thread is the same ole, an average players wet dream it is possible to win vs 1 of the best.
It is not.
I can beat a 2700 rated person.
TheGreatBulletPlayer wrote:
I can beat a 2700 rated person.
BungaBungaFischer wrote:
mdinnerspace wrote:
Jeez, another idiot postulating if a betting fix were in place. You could fill a 1000 pages with 'what ifs'.
your mother had a different, much nicer name for me last night.
School must be out..
If not 0%, as close to 0% as possible. As a very, very rough comparison to try to put it in perspective, have you ever tried to finish your game against the computer, even on setting 7 or 8, and even when the comp has no queen or is otherwise totally lost? It is still often amazingly difficult to win, and a 2700 player is better than Chess.com's Level 7. 
This time though, anybody mentions monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare gets automatic muting by the Mod !