@ DjonniDerevnja, this boy who is 1277, his tactics is really impressive. He probably will climb up rating ladder quickly. A lot good coaches concentrate on tsctics and that is why these kids very strong in tactics. You actually outplay this kid and Rb1 was blunder, better is Nd2 and little struggle and a lot fight in the game by both player.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
It's pretty unlikely, but not impossible.
Elubas wrote:
"It is a mistake, a huge one, to make the assumption that given more chanches, the odds turn in your favor for the lower rated to win."
Don't tell me you're getting my position mixed up with the gambler's fallacy! If I say that there is a decent shot of a 1300 winning once out of 10,000, I'm not saying that his chances are really low the first 9,999 games and then his odds are really high on the 10,000th. I'm saying that the chance of a 1300 to win on at least one of those games, which could be the first game, the 800th game or the 6500th game, is not so bad.
----
What if we have 10,000 separate 1300 players playing 10,000 separate 2700 (obviously impossible, but it's a hypothetical). I say the 2700's go 10,000-0. Not even a draw.
yureesystem wrote:
@ DjonniDerevnja, this boy who is 1277, his tactics is really impressive. He probably will climb up rating ladder quickly. A lot good coaches concentrate on tsctics and that is why these kids very strong in tactics. You actually outplay this kid and Rb1 was blunder, better is Nd2 and little struggle and a lot fight in the game by both player.
I went wrong in that tactical sequense. It was very difficult, and I spent 11 minutes on taking on RxBa3. Later I maybe should have moved the knight to a1. I think my Ke2 before the tactic was a tacticallowing mistake . Kd2 would have defended a pawn and not allowed the fork in move 24.
I knew that Hy is good. I played him a year ago and lost.
To beat such small monster I must work more on tactics and on seeing, searching and controlling. I also have to get the openingbasics rigth.
My main point in this discussion is that somebody thinks the 1300s are bad at chess. Try beating them yourself. They do play very good in many games.
If I play two more open tournaments like this, and fails against those 400 above me, one of my equals, and one of the smallest kids, I will go to the 1300s myself. Then i will become a real 1300, a middleaged 1300.
Absolutely not.
-Warren Buffett
chessking1976 wrote:
Elubas wrote:
"It is a mistake, a huge one, to make the assumption that given more chanches, the odds turn in your favor for the lower rated to win."
Don't tell me you're getting my position mixed up with the gambler's fallacy! If I say that there is a decent shot of a 1300 winning once out of 10,000, I'm not saying that his chances are really low the first 9,999 games and then his odds are really high on the 10,000th. I'm saying that the chance of a 1300 to win on at least one of those games, which could be the first game, the 800th game or the 6500th game, is not so bad.
----
What if we have 10,000 separate 1300 players playing 10,000 separate 2700 (obviously impossible, but it's a hypothetical). I say the 2700's go 10,000-0. Not even a draw.
This has already been discussed earlier in this thread. Yes, I think you would see at least one draw or win. 10,000 games with not a single accident? That's quite a claim.
Morphysrevenges wrote:
The probability of winning is 0.000316127797629618.
This means that if they contested about 3200 games, the lower rated player would win one, or draw two. (on average over a large number of games).
so the last post above mine is bull$hiT.
the probably shown above is based upon the formulas developed by arpad ELO to assign ratings, make rating changes, and predict the probabilities or winning based upon rating differences.
This is not guessing. It is how the math works.
I dont think ELO is about winningpropability. I think its statistics based on history. To a huge deegree this statistics actually correlates with winningpropabilities, but it doesnt count in the fact that many lowrated are on the way up, and that many 2700s have more or less peaked already, and are sliding down, or holding steady.
In the big open tournaments I have played, adult 1300s are very few, most of the 1300s and below are small kids. Adults stuck on 1300 maybe retires, or maybe they are parents playing the tournaments their children plays.
Elubas wrote:
chessking1976 wrote:
Elubas wrote:
"It is a mistake, a huge one, to make the assumption that given more chanches, the odds turn in your favor for the lower rated to win."
Don't tell me you're getting my position mixed up with the gambler's fallacy! If I say that there is a decent shot of a 1300 winning once out of 10,000, I'm not saying that his chances are really low the first 9,999 games and then his odds are really high on the 10,000th. I'm saying that the chance of a 1300 to win on at least one of those games, which could be the first game, the 800th game or the 6500th game, is not so bad.
----
What if we have 10,000 separate 1300 players playing 10,000 separate 2700 (obviously impossible, but it's a hypothetical). I say the 2700's go 10,000-0. Not even a draw.
This has already been discussed earlier in this thread. Yes, I think you would see at least one draw or win. 10,000 games with not a single accident? That's quite a claim.
----
Sure there will be accidents like a knocked over soda or something and maybe even some mistakes or blunders but no losses.
It is interesting and fascinating about this question of "can a 1300 elo rated player beat a higher rated player (perhaps 2000+)? Perhaps more experience have a plus factor against lesser experience in the game of chess but nothing is impossible in this game, it depends on the adversaries, although mathematically more experience is a plus factor. But, IT IS POSSIBLE!
Brave_John wrote:
It is interesting and fascinating about this question of "can a 1300 elo rated player beat a higher rated player (perhaps 2000+)? Perhaps more experience have a plus factor against lesser experience in the game of chess but nothing is impossible in this game, it depends on the adversaries, although mathematically more experience is a plus factor. But, IT IS POSSIBLE!
A 1300 definitively can beat a 2000. No doubt about it. (But the 2700 is more untouchable). My coach believes that I can reach 2000 in some years, and when that happens I now for sure that I will lose some games to 1300. Sometimes the brrain is somewhat drifting, and dont really connect. The last game i lost to a 2000 had unrealistic mistakes, like mistakes from another world. I knew the opening, but mixed up the moveorder in move 7. In move nine I blundered my knight making a mistake I knew all about , and trying to save it by counterattacking his queen I lost my own queen (with check ) in move 11. I played on, feeling smart that I was able to figure out that counteratttack, and suddendly in move 15 I realized that I was playing queenless, but my opponent still had his queen. I had played 4 moves without my queen before I noticed that she was gone. I surrendered in move 15.
That type of error has not much with chess-skills to dto. Its another kind of mistake that can happen regardless of chess-strenght. I think it was to much focus and tension, mental overload. Very strong players easily loses to 1300s when their mind is so far off. Many mistakes in chess is made because the brain hasnt connected ok, and 1300s are good enough to punish bad mistakes even if the opponent is rated 2000.
If you read the game I posted in this tread where Hy Chang Vo did beat me, it is very clear that this below 1300 kid is able continue strong play all the way in after a strong tactic.
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Brave_John wrote:
I played on, feeling smart that I was able to figure out that counteratttack, and suddendly in move 15 I realized that I was playing queenless, but my opponent still had his queen. I had played 4 moves without my queen before I noticed that she was gone. I surrendered in move 15.
Please tell me you were playing bullet. You weren't playing slow chess, blundered away your queen (with check), and then only realized it 4 moves later. That cannot happen, ever. If it truly did, you might want to go have a brain scan done to check for tumors. I'm dead serious. I can't even imagine having that kind of lapse.
Rosenbalm wrote:
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Brave_John wrote:
I played on, feeling smart that I was able to figure out that counteratttack, and suddendly in move 15 I realized that I was playing queenless, but my opponent still had his queen. I had played 4 moves without my queen before I noticed that she was gone. I surrendered in move 15.
Please tell me you were playing bullet. You weren't playing slow chess, blundered away your queen (with check), and then only realized it 4 moves later. That cannot happen, ever. If it truly did, you might want to go have a brain scan done to check for tumors. I'm dead serious. I can't even imagine having that kind of lapse.
I was overignited, and blitzed out the starting moves. It was 90min 30 sec. I was so high on tension that I wasnt in contact with myself. It was the first game of the really big tournament, where I was planning my breaktrough. Showing what I learned in 3 years of hard training. I wanted to win insanely much, and the start was in fact insane.
I think this state of mind can happen to several people, and that the brain functioned as if it was contaminated with narcotica or too much whisky.
It became my worst tournament ever. With 5 really bad losses, to ok losses and two fine victories against cute little girls.
I lost a pawn early against this fine player, won tempoinitiative when she grabbed that pawn, isolated her knight and came first and queened a pawn in the endgame:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208624164659178&set=a.4335977715257.2155920.1161750496&type=3&theater
My victory over Livia Lindstad was strong. The picture was taken the previous day when she played doublechess teamed up with the best player in the world.
TIME TO BUMP THIS THING, WE DONT WANT THIS GREAT THREAD DYING GUYS!
Indeed. Don't let this thread die.
Is there a chance that a 70kg kickboxer who just started training one year ago can beat a 110kg fighter who has been training for the past 20 years?
wtf , not chances
let's the shill's rule the world
Yes. If the 1300 player is a Grandmaster who has only played one game on chess.com and still only has a 1300 rating, but is actually over 2600 in strength. lol
Elubas wrote
Don't tell me you're getting my position mixed up with the gambler's fallacy! If I say that there is a decent shot of a 1300 winning once out of 10,000, I'm not saying that his chances are really low the first 9,999 games and then his odds are really high on the 10,000th. I'm saying that the chance of a 1300 to win on at least one of those games, which could be the first game, the 800th game or the 6500th game, is not so bad.
After playing 9,000 games against a GM, that 1300 player might become a 1700 or 1800 player, with all of that experience. Then, after he has improved his playing strength and has learned all of the GM's opening repertoire, I think he could win one or two games out of the last 1,000. So actually, his chances do become better on the 10,000'th attempt, not due to the odds getting better, but due to the fact that he will become better than 1300 strength after playing that many games against a GM. In the case of the lottery, each ticket is equal no matter how many you buy, but here, the player would get better over time. Quite the paradox.
Some more words about Hy Chang Vo. He doesnt count because he is not 1300, only 1277, and also is so much younger and stronger than normal 1300s that he doesnt count either.
But the boy can count!
Today he didnt play any GM, only a 1461, but look at the way he got the advantage! The beautiful bishopsacrifice in move 20 that started a tactical sequense ending in a knightfork in move 24. Read and enjoy? I enjoyed it as the loser, and Norwegian champion IM Johan Salomon enjoyed looking at it after the game.
Of course he never would have got the situation that allowed pulling such tactic against a GM.
The only thing this game proofs is that a little 1277 kid is capable of playing good beautiful chess against a mediocre opponent.
Read and enjoy:
http://tournamentservice.com/viewgame.aspx?TID=OsloChessFestival-Masters2016-NordstrandSjakklubb_2&GROUP=&gameno=573