My point in this debate is that 1300s is much stronger than many players believe.
I remember being 1300. I was probably 1300 for a year.
I was over 1300 after my second tournament. It took me nine years to get over 1600, though.
This is still going on???
Infinite monkeys is a stupid formulation. Infinite series of random letters is more to the point. An infinite string of random letters would contain every combination. This not only includes what's been written, but anything that will ever be written.
More interesting is that humans don't play randomly. So it's possible even after infinite games that none of them will be a non-loss for the weaker player.
Well, it's just a fun analogy. The point is to show how, because there are a limited amount of possibilities in the world, strange things can happen. But hey, I think it's a testament to how awesome humans are, that we can do all of this stuff, like write plays, without having to rely on having an infinite amount of time, but rather just decades. Shows how efficient we are.
As to your second point. Possible but extremely implausible. It's more likely that you're not even going to need the uber high numbers like google before the lower rated player wins.
Kids actually don't improve quickly. Kids don't learn anything quicker than adults, that's just a myth. Kids don't learn language faster and they don't learn chess faster.
Wow, I thought this was quite true, on the whole anyway. At a certain age you can't even learn language anymore if you go too long without being exposed to it. Sources?
Adults are (much) smarter than kids but that doesn't mean they can learn more easily. It's partly because kids don't know much that they can learn something at a certain rate, because they haven't yet developed many bad habits and can be influenced in the right way. Intelligence/talent helps of course.
But again, are there any sources you're using for your opinion, here? Besides just your personal story?
Anyway this thread is pretty ridiculous. If we're going by the title alone then, yes, there is some mathematical chance that is higher than 0% for this outcome -the 1300 beating the 2700- to occur, but it's a chance that translates to such a small fraction of 1% that it's hard to conceive of it ever happening in our world.
Right, it's pretty clear actually, to me anyway. It's not a strong claim to say that there is a tiny possibility of something happening.
I guess this drags on because people get mad about it or because it's unintuitive. Obviously, it's one thing to say there is a "chance," and another thing to say it's a chance worth relying on or caring about. It's not. Although the thread does remind us that we're all human, and can do uncharacteristic things (again, not enough to hope to ever beat a 2700, lol).
"Any adult could go from 900-1900 in 3 years if they wanted to."
Yes (though it would be very difficult for most). But the key is the rating points beyond that. A young kid who is already at 1900 can still plow through those next 700 rating points or so, with the right resources, etc. As an adult that's almost unthinkable. Although that may be partly because of having a limited amount of time on his hands, but there should be more to it than that -- chess learning is about quantity for sure, but quality also plays a big role and can give lots of shortcuts.
So yeah, if you took a young kid with the intelligence of an adult, he'd be world champion in like a year 
But if you had to choose between brain flexibility and intelligence, the former is the smarter choice, regarding fast, consistent improvement. The best young kids had both the former and the latter (relative to their age), and had lots of resources, etc.
Are there even googol possible games of chess though?
How many unique games do you think two players could generate (if they never tired, aged, and they have the memory of an average human)?
With opening, strategic, and other preferences the number should be relatively low. I don't think it's too unlikely that all possible games (considering these conditions) between two specific players would be wins for a much higher rated player.
Sure there's a chance the lower rated player wins. But there's also a chance 100% of the games are losses.
Talented people who start while they are kids can reach 2200-2300 fide, that's not unusual. How many people have you seen starting chess as total begnners when they're already adults and eventually obtain that rating?
I don't even think that has ever existed.
Talented people who start while they are kids can reach 2200-2300 fide, that's not unusual. How many people have you seen starting chess as total begnners when they're already adults and eventually obtain that rating?
I don't even think that has ever existed.
How many adults do you know that can dedicate 10 straight years to chess the way kids can after they first learn?
Sure there's a chance the lower rated player wins. But there's also a chance 100% of the games are losses.
...That's like saying there is a chance that an infinite string of numbers doesn't contain the number 2. Because that is also in fact possible -- there would be nothing contradictory about an infinite set containing no 2, as every member of that set still could have legitimately appeared by being any other number.
But it never makes sense to predict that there will be such a set as it's a zero probability event.
Kids actually don't improve quickly. Kids don't learn anything quicker than adults, that's just a myth. Kids don't learn language faster and they don't learn chess faster.
Wow, I thought this was quite true, on the whole anyway. At a certain age you can't even learn language anymore if you go too long without being exposed to it. Sources?
Adults are (much) smarter than kids but that doesn't mean they can learn more easily. It's partly because kids don't know much that they can learn something at a certain rate, because they haven't yet developed many bad habits and can be influenced in the right way. Intelligence/talent helps of course.
But again, are there any sources you're using for your opinion, here? Besides just your personal story?
I'm afraid you're actually the one who needs to source children's magical learning advantages over adults. Obviously there are diminishing returns; you don't learn any faster when you're 40 than thirty, and at 60 you're probably much slower... we don't need to even bring up what happens after 70/80 and beyond.
Nonetheless healthy adults are just as capable of learning as children are. If you plonked me in Germany and told me I had nothing to do but learn the language I would be more fluent in three years than any six year old would be after the same time period.
I don't believe the 700 points beyond 1900 are easier for children, only that they require immense work and dedication for very very little reward. It's not so hard to make that commitment when you're 12 and have all the support in the world, it's rather harder and less likely to decide to commit six hours to chess every single day for ten years when you're already 25. Nobody is going to do that, and honestly, nobody really should.
Well, no... you, in fact, should be giving sources. Because the sources we have typically point in the other direction to what you're saying, you should show how those sources had it all wrong, or show a contradicting one.
But for one thing, there was a case in which a kid was sort of locked up and isolated from the world by some disturbing parents, and she never or almost never heard anyone speak. When she tried to learn language at 12 or so she has made extremely little progress in years. This is a first language we're talking about.
I don't know, you've really never seen studies about kids learning faster? It's just surprising to me. Their brains work really differently, and that's inevitably going to give them advantages and diadvantages.
I stand by the rest of what I said. Having intelligence, which adults often do, will help you improve. But brain flexibility and free time are stronger factors, which probably explain why you see what we see in this world, why you never have that oddball 30 year old genius who just discovered chess becoming a world champion contender.
"The vast vast vast vast vast majority of scholastic players, even some who showed promise never make it to GM at all, so what does that suggest about the innate superiority of children?"
Well, it makes being a child look like a necessary trait, rather than sufficient one, to become a super GM. Simple enough.
You must start young to become a super GM.
Is very different from saying,
If you start young you will become a super GM.
Less formally, children have more potential to become a super GM than adults. That certainly doesn't mean that, in the majority of kids, that won't be counteracted by their deficiencies. But for the kids that don't have so many counteracting deficiencies, a huge minority as you pointed out, they do become very strong.
Talented people who start while they are kids can reach 2200-2300 fide, that's not unusual. How many people have you seen starting chess as total begnners when they're already adults and eventually obtain that rating?
I don't even think that has ever existed.
Of course it has. I was 1650 USCF a year ago and I'm now pushing up to 2000. I'll be national master within 20 months.
I'm an improving expert and even I can't be so confident about becoming a master. Naturally you know that the difficulty of moving up increases exponentially.
I think a beginning adult will learn chess much faster than a 6 year old. That's not really the question though.
Years ago, we were only discussing players with established ratings, not kids whose ratings may be unreliable.
That was page 1 smyslov. This is page 193. Get with the times.... lol
Blackavar, you are questioning that children learns faster. Guess what! That question is my project. I am 54 and curious. Is it true? So I decided to try them. Try if I can outperform the most brilliant kids in my country in chesslearning and progress. I am going for it, and compare myself with 10 year old superkids. My project is 2,5 years now.
Do I follow them? This weekends tournament gives a hint. Three of the best ca 10 year old kids in the country, which I have met one or several times, does play in my class. According to rating they have improved more than me. They are rated high enough to fit in the b-class, while I am not, but plays one class up by choice. After round one the kids are nr 11,35 and 59. I am nr 23 (split lead). Bjørn Magnus at 35 drew one of the ratingfavourites, who I will meet in round 2.
I am of the opinion that it can be done & without relying on the higher rated player to blunder as I have done it. I was on 1115 & beat a player rated 1730 without relying on a blunder.
In other words, you are not strong enough to understand the nature of the 1730's blunder.