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

Umm... ?

Elubas wrote:

chessking1976 wrote:

Morphysrevenges wrote:

Seriously? this thread is still going?? please Die Die Die!!!!!

-----

It had died and you starting beating this dead horse.

It's reverse psychology. Whenever there haven't been posts here for about a week, this guy comes here and asks for this thread to die. However, what he is really trying to do is draw more attention to this thread to make the thread alive again.

It's such a brilliant concept that only I was able to figure it out, you see.

----

Looks like it worked, much to our dismay.

DavidPeters2 wrote:

Btw the bolt comparison is lame, he false started and was disqualified in a world championship. You or I would have won that day, no what ifs or buts about it.

Lame???

Geeezzzzxyz.....

Talk about lame???

I could bring my baseball bat and bop him one before the race start... or

How about I trip him and hog tie his feet, place him in a sac, blindfold him and point in the wrong direction. I have my doubts about winning even then, but ok maybe a one in a million. I think a better chanch would be to lay down a spike strip the entire length, 12 inch nails.

Anything else? That about covers every possibility.

Oh wait a sec....

what if he veers off course, fails to break the tape...I win !!!

Q: How old is this thread?

A: En passant was not in effect when it began.

Long live the question that takes precedence over the meaning of life.

1300 vs 2700?

You might draw 1 game in 10000 due to blunders/stalemate, or finding a perpetual check.

You might win 1 game in 100000 due to blunders/oversight.

My estimate is not far-fetched at all. I'd be willing to bet that those odds are right on the mark.

How much? I'll agree to any amount. Cash on the barrel.

I know you are making a complete guess of it.

Mathamaticians here have placed the odds at astronomical numbers, in the zillions. You give me 100,000 /1 odds? I'll take that bet.

Bit desperate mdinner, he did false start and was disqualified, it actually happened and you can look it  up if you don't believe me. Unless you are unable to run or even walk 100 meters you would have beaten him that day. Tell me how that's wrong and try harder than geeeeeezxyz please

I remember when this forum was made everyone was talking about the Boris Gelfand game and now you are talking about the 1009th universe in the 11th dimension. Such a big change...

Abstraction. Some people can do it, some apparently can't.

hello

But that's just sarcasm, right?

There is no inherent difference between the point in this universe and some random point in the multiverse.

I know right? :) Good catch.

I don't believe the "multiverse" exists. If you so desire, be my guest. If you hadn't figured it out, that's the point of my arguement. A multiverse, the concept of infinity, extra dimensions are simply ways the mind attempts to "make sense" of what it can not understand. What lies beyond the very edge of the universe, the event horizon? There "must be" something, right? So the mind imagines these possibilities, concepts that in fact may not be anywhere near the truth.

Elubas wrote:

There is no inherent difference between the point in this universe and some random point in the multiverse.

This "belief" and it is exactly that "a belief", because it is unprovable, can not ever be verified by observation or experiment. String theory , infinity, multiverses, extra dimensions are figments of the imagination. Exotic speculations to entertain, with no basis grounded in reality.

These concepts then get used to suggest the impossible becomes possible in a "made up" world. There is no evidence a multiverse exists, therefor it becomes faulty logic to use this arguement as a basis to support a belief anything (not an absurdity ) is possible.

2700 player could be sick, drunk, on drugs, etc.

1300 player could have father who is head of mafia and 2700 player scared to win.

2700 player could be caught cheating and thus forfeit game.

1300 player could get away with cheating and thus use computer to help win game.

1300 player could play against 2 different 2700 players at same time in carefully controlled setting as part of a con job... one side as white, other side as black..  In effect the 2700 players play against each other as result.

1300 player could be carefully coached/prepared on memorizing openings and lines and a crazy agressive player.  Most of time games stray from what he remembers and he makes mistake, but on one very lucky day he manages to have the 2700 player follow a memorized line and wins thanks to following a long unusual string of gambits that 2700 player was not prepared for.

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.