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

The sandbaggers are to weak. There are some class B players, sandbagging to win in class C and collect prizemoney, but class A does not sandbag that deep.

No matter what strange circumstances and situations we might dream up the simple fact is that a 1300 rated player has only a tiny chance of winning against someone rated 2700, and no chance whatsoever of outplaying them. 

They could only win through exploiting a catastrophic blunder. But strong GMs tend only to make catastrophic blunders when they have been put under sustained pressure by another GM.

According to the Elo rating system a 400 rating point difference means the higher rated player will score 100% or very close agaisnt the lower rated one.  To have a realistic, if tiny chance, of beating a 2700 hundred player you need to be a genuine 2300+.  Has anyone ever seen a rating jump from 1300 to 2300+ in one go, or know of a child prodigy with a 1300 rating that is playing at 2300+ level.  I doubt it.  But if one existed, and was playing a Super GM, I think the super GM might just know something about the true strength of his opponent.

I guess Magnus did play some games at 2300+ before he collected 1300 ratingpoints.  Elham Abdrlauf is not rated yet, but performs already at 2000.

JWILD wrote:

Short version:

1. Players new to over the board, but not new to chess and

2. Sandbaggers

This is your arguement, answering the question of could a "1300 beat a 2700". My response was , they really aren't 1300 rated, then are they? (What is the point of making up what if scenarious, I ask? Are we talking 1300 or not?) You respond with calling me ignorant and stupid. Your rational was pointed out to be flawed, you respond by insults. How old are you anyway?

The thread is over 4 years old. Wish I had a dollar for everyone who's posted "it's possible if the 1300 was really a closet GM, was a prodigy, was this or could be that." Any rational discussion asks, does an established 1300 posses the skill set to possibly beat a 2700? Of course the 2700 would have to have an off performance. I content he could give Queen odds and win everytime. Another dollar please for everyone making up drunkenness etc.

The OP cited a Gelfand type blunder, thought he could go on to win the game. (Diagram on 1st page). He could not, alot of play left with major pieces.

When he achieves a 2000 rating you can say he performs at 2000 level.  Right now he does not have enough rated games to say, but those he does have suggest a current strength closer to 1750.  Of course he could improve rapidly [At my club one young player has just gone from 1650 at age 12 to 2300 at age 14 and is expected to make IM soon. Another of our youngsters is following the same path] 

Elubas wrote:

mdinnerspace wrote:

And the answer is No. No chanch. Zero, no matter the crazy scenario that can be dreamed up, it can not happen. A monkey will never type Shakespeare, elephants will never fly. Period.

Sarcasm right? We all know that a monkey could type Shakespeare, and that elephants could fly, they just probably won't.

Not sarcasm and not "probably wont". It is a different belief we have Elubas. You believe "anything is possible". Use mathamatical formulas, cite infinity, science and other such arguements. Fact remains it is a "belief", much the same as your belief in Determinism, very much a scientific perspective. I do not believe anything is possible, nor do I believe in Determinism (although I adhere to the scientific method). Dream on, think there is a possibility elephants could fly, maybe in the 999th multiverse and 1 year shy of infinity. Whatever floats your boat

i wonder if the original poster is still a member of chess.com

(from 4 years ago)

is he going to reply to his thread and give us his insight

The ratingperformance in this saturdays otb rapid tournament was 2020, and in his club he is winning against 1800s and 2000s.  These results are what I expect from a 2000.  I actually dont know if he has started playing serious longchess yet. 

Good results at rapid chess don't mean that he would play at the same level in a slow game. 

It was 20min+5sec.  Slow game is one step up. I am curious about how he can play slow. They say he only has played chess for two years, so I recon he has a fabulous calculating talent. If thats true  he will benefit from longer timecontrols.  He is listed in Oslo Chess Festival. Its an open swiss tournament with 13 GMs already listed a month before the start. It will be fun if Elham Abdrlauf gets his first slow chess fiderating at above 2000. I never heard of that ever has happend to anyone in the last years. I hope I will meet him myself. That would be interesting. And I can get his autograph on the scoresheet :)

I have to assume the discussion is only relevant if it pertains to standard time controls in rated OTB tournaments. As I've said, it's a whole different world out there away from a small pool of players. Different styles, temperaments, stress, new surroundings etc. Fast improving players may well reach lofty ratings, but it takes time to acquire the experiance and confidence to perform at the top levels. I have seen many a player reach 2000 in a very short time. They then begin to play masters, players who study the game, devote alot of time and effort. These 2000 players often became discouraged as they find themselves losing, where's in the past they were always winning, it came easy and natural for them. When they discover the extra effort needed to maintain a master rating, quite a few give it up.

They played because they won, satisfied some sort of ego thing. They weren't playing because they had a love for the game. This happens in all sport. Human nature.

Ok what the hell mdinnerspace. Did you not just tell me that sometimes you use sarcasm and I don't pick it up? Now you're saying you don't use sarcasm? Help me out here. I never seem to grasp what you "really" think. Sometimes I suspect that you technically agree with me but just don't like using the word "possible" for nonzero chances that are incredibly low.

"and no chance whatsoever of outplaying them."

Hmm. No, I think that's possible, too (unless you're defining "outplay" in some tautological kind of way). Although now we really are getting into pretty unhumanly levels of unlikely.

Hmm.

This is where I'd stress the "it's possible for it to be impossible" heh. Chess contains many possibilities, but humans play in a very limited way.

I know this gets close to a no true Scottsman falacy, but we will have to agree on some fundamental definitions like what is 2700? What makes a human play at a 2700 level? What doesn't go into making a 2700 human player?

Even the current 2700 players aren't that way because their mind literally restricts certain bad moves from happening. They're just very unlikely to play certain kinds of bad moves. But they still can, and have.

All we know from watching 2700s play is that they are likely to do certain kinds of things and unlikely to do others. That doesn't mean they can't do these things.

Humans will be humans regardless of what rating system we create. You can't physically get rid of having a blind spot. All you can do is measure how rarely it happens :)

So when it comes to a 1300 outplaying a 2700, basically, you take how unlikely it is for them to outplay them for one move (seeing a mate in 1), and then you multiply that by a lot. So the odds would get pretty ridiculous.

You said it yourself one time, binary. Ratings are a relative measure. So all you know for absolute sure is that a 2700 just does a lot better than people rated a lot less than him. Obviously that means that you can say a much lower rated player beating him is unlikely... but can you truly say anything beyond that? :) Maybe there is some kind of magic power the 2700 has, but that can't be proven just by saying "he has a high rating" because all that literally means is "he has better results than those lower than him." It says nothing about why he has better results.

Let me try and explain my position. 1st, I think the question is rediculas and not worthy of serious discussion. Is Chess any different than other competitive endeavors? Say a running race. No one would suppose they could beat Bolt, well besides a silly arguement "he could fall". What's the point in discussing "what if's"? In the real world, I don't care how many races take place, there is no chance.

So the question arises chess, the difference is it is a mental competition. Any difference? I think not. Unless the 2700 fell over from a heart attack, there is no chanch.

Now, what I believe is a 2200, a bona fide master, would realistically stand a chanch after 1000's of games. They posses enough skills to eventually win one imo.