It is just as easy as winning a world cup soccer, tennis, americain football or any other sport without one single training.
So good luck!
It is just as easy as winning a world cup soccer, tennis, americain football or any other sport without one single training.
So good luck!
It is just as easy as winning a world cup soccer, tennis, americain football or any other sport without one single training.
So good luck!
Not exactly. The 1300s are reasonably fit amateurs, and have put down a lot of training. 1300 Fide is not bad, maybe a strenght close to 1650 online.
To Chessnutcafe: Was this Naka-loss a rated longchessgame? Do anybody know who , when and where? Do anybody have the gamenotations?
Such comparisons of ratings can not be made- internet vs fide. Some players fide rating may actually be higher than their online rating. It's dependent on the skill set.
i remember Naka played the early Qh5 line... and his much lower rated opponent beat him. i don't remember where or when... just remember the video analysis and watching. I'm sure it's in the chess.com archives or even on y/t
anyone else remember the specifics?
There is no equivalent to a mate in 1 blunder in any serious sport that I can think of.
Well an ace in tennis loses you just one point (if the guy aces you). So your attentiveness, even total, 100% inattentiveness, towards the other guy's serve, loses you just a single point. Whereas in chess, it might be a mate in 1 you didn't pay attention to, and you lose the game. So there's a huge difference there, and that's what I'm getting at. I don't know much about boxing, though I'd say, a weakling wouldn't be able to deliver a knockout punch anyway even if given a perfect opportunity, whereas a chess beginner might be able to execute a mate in 1 on a GM if allowed.
There is no equivalent to a mate in 1 blunder in any serious sport that I can think of.
Well an ace in tennis loses you just one point (if the guy aces you). So your attentiveness, even total, 100% inattentiveness, towards the other guy's serve, loses you just a single point. Whereas in chess, it might be a mate in 1 you didn't pay attention to, and you lose the game. So there's a huge difference there, and that's what I'm getting at. I don't know much about boxing, though I'd say, a weakling wouldn't be able to deliver a knockout punch anyway even if given a perfect opportunity, whereas a chess beginner might be able to execute a mate in 1 on a GM if allowed.
An emaciated terminally ill person couldn't give a knockout punch, but any fit person who hit correctly could knockout / critically damage a pro boxer if the boxer let them have a shot at the chin.
Such comparisons of ratings can not be made- internet vs fide. Some players fide rating may actually be higher than their online rating. It's dependent on the skill set.
Yes, I met 2000+ Fide that was 1750 online, but they doesnt give it all, and typically plays faster than longchess.
But a 1300 Fide that playes onlinegames with good effort, he or she probably might have onlinerating at ca 1650. I am 1461 Fide and 1791 online.
Dont focus too much on these numbers, what I really mean, at what I try to say, is that the Fide 1300s are far better than a lot of people think. To get 1300 Fide you have to have played at least 10 games in rated tournaments over the board, and some om them victorious. To get a victory against any active otb-tournamentplayer is difficult.
In Høstturneringen (Nordstrand sjakklubb) thursday the biggest upset was Amelia Nordquelle (1085) beating Lars Kveli (1728). Lars learnt the hard way that 1085 might be very dangerous. Amelia is registered with 94 games and have lost, lost , lost and started winning.
How many players would the 2700 level guy have to play in a row? If he has to play over, like 100 guys, then yeah it's possible.
What's the difference between a really bad 1300 and a really good 1300
The really bad 1300 doesnt rehearse at home, plays few games, and is losing strenght. The really good 1300 is training a lot, learning a lot and is gaining a lot strenght. Amelia isnt 1300 yet (1085), but the day she reaches 1300 (in november?) she might be able to trash a lot of 1800+ players. The bad 1300 will have no chances against the same 1800s.
Amelia actually doesnt count in this discussion, because she is not a 1300, and she is a prodigy. But she is good! :) Very good!
The really good 1300 probably is superintelligent, and the bad 1300 more probably has intelligence slightly above average.
The bad 1300 is much more experienced than the really good 1300 who isnt anywhere near peaking yet.
Take a look at the match Spassky - Petrosian 1966, since we are talking here of psychopaths obviously
Silly question. The only suprising thing is that this discussion is still painfully dragging on 250 pages later...
How many players would the 2700 level guy have to play in a row? If he has to play over, like 100 guys, then yeah it's possible.
In a simultaneous exhibition, the probability of winning increases not just by simple repeating of the same small probability p. There is also the factor of fatigue, the 2700 must put a lot of effort if he wants to win/draw all 100 games simultaneously.
Q: "Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?"
A: Ask Hikaru Nakamura
It happened to him, it's rare, thus it's improbable, but not imposible.