Dont know.Dont care.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
Elubas writes:
And again it's telling that the cutoff we use for deciding that something is "basically completely zero" is subjective and dependent on the situation: for trivial things, a 1 in 1000 chance might as well be zero, but a 1 in 1000 chance of a food product distributed all over the country being poisonous might be a serious issue. I wouldn't say either of these cases were based on some kind of philosophical analysis like what mdinnerspace has been doing. In fact quite the opposite, what we decided to do in each of these examples was a totally practical matter.
We have both expressed views. I do my best to see your perspective, but do not put words in your mouth, as you seem to have a habit of doing with others. Your "interpretation" of what I'm expressing ends up twisted, seen in a way that can be easily disproven, or at least mistaken in your judgement.
Briefly, and for the last time, when I'm talking of philosophy and probabilities, I'm referring to very large numbers over a period of time. That other factors are in play relative to a one time event. That the chanchs/odds may in reality be quite different for some examples. I don't see where a 1 in 1000 chanch of food poisoning is relevant to the discussion. 1 in a 1000 odds is basic. Philosophical analysis? What is that? Numbers are not analyzed by any philosophy. The philosophy involved pertains to; do the numbers involved, which are not in dispute, represent the true odds, Might there not be other factors involved besides just numbers?
I do not ask for any agreement, I'm not trying to convince you or point where you are incorrect, but please try to refrain from a synopsis of what I said and then tell us what I really meant. I'm proposing a view, although unconventional. Not arguing about who is right or wrong.
As I recall, this began with "anything is possible" excluding the absurd and such things as squaring a circle. My view, a different perspective than given here by some, is that to answer this by giving mathamatical formulas, the odds of probabilities, is not "seeing" the entire picture.
i dont think there is any chance
You'll find out next week when the chess olympics start. 
Just played 1190~ 5/5, cant be that far from 1300. I have to say he played really strong for that rating ;]
Well I might argue quite the opposite, mdinnerspace, with how to interpret the fact that I might make a "synopsis" of your view. Isn't that kind of charitable? I could just say, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but instead I am trying to take what you say, which isn't always clear to me, and trying to put it into my own words, so that I can attempt to respond to what you're saying. That I might not know exactly what you're saying wouldn't be unique to me -- lots of us on this thread have been trying to figure out what you mean, but you often don't make it very clear. At least I am trying to figure out what you mean. And surely, you don't always seem to respond to my points, either. So the miscommunications are far from one-sided.
So you say (again, me attempting to form what you said into some coherent idea) that sometimes, what the numbers suggest, isn't exactly what reality is. And you mention it has something to do with large numbers. Well, that's why I was talking about "slim chances" like 1 in 1000: it seems like you don't complain about the use of math when it's for "normal" chances like the odds of rolling a 5 on a six sided die, or getting two heads in a row. You seem to have a problem with extending this very far out, presumably because the probabilities get so low that they are impractical. So it often seems like you're arguing that when the math predicts odds that are "low enough," they somehow cease to exist anymore.
You keep saying that other factors are in play when it comes to a one time event. Would you mind listing some of those, if you want people to understand what you're talking about?
As I noted before, there was a 1441 victory over a 2251 in 2011. The 1441 won the tourny 4-0 with 2 wins over Class As, a win over an Expert, and a win over a Master.
Elubas wrote:
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but instead I am trying to take what you say, which isn't always clear to me, and trying to put it into my own words, so that I can attempt to respond to what you're saying.
Exactly what I pointed out Elubas. If other people want a further explanation, they can ask me, we don't need you to explain your interpretation of my ideas to them. You don't understand what I'm saying anyway. What in the heck are you doing making guesses? You then proceed with your "superior" reasoning. You don't get my views. I get that. Please refrain from constantly repeating how you think I'm ignorant. I do not partake in childish name calling. You should not either. I read a scathing post by a member in your blog about determinism. It seems this behavior has been a constant over the years. Maybe one day you'll get the message that referring to people's views as pathetic, ignorant, proclaiming your views are right, they are wrong deserves no respect.
Elubas wrote:
You keep saying that other factors are in play when it comes to a one time event. Would you mind listing some of those, if you want people to understand what you're talking about?
I have written of my views more than several times. I will not dignify your accusation by repeating them.
Again, you state "factors in play when it comes to a one time event" when in fact I wrote of factors as they relate over a period of time, Not a one time event in time. You completely turned my statement around, leading me to believe everything I say gets rejected before you glance it over.
Well, no, when I "summarize your view," generally, I have a decent feeling that that is related to what you believe. The fact that sometimes it isn't just means that, well, I don't always interpret 100% of what you say correctly. That applies for everybody, does it not? Do you think you know every nuance of my argument? Probably not. Even if you know the overall summary, there are probably some aspects you would get wrong, since this is kind of a nuanced issue.
So I mean, if you consider not being 100% correct in everything I do such a horrible thing, then ok, I'm a terrible person. But the way I see it, I'm trying to find as much meaning as I can in what you say, and I see that as productive. I'm sorry you don't. We all do a little bit of each, don't we? We give an approximation of what we think the other might believe, and we also ask for clarification. That seems quite normal and reasonable. I'm not sure why you are making it out to be so bad.
As for calling you ignorant and such. You're really going to play the ad hominem game? Ok then... and you have called my position nonsense zillions of times. You keep saying that I just think everything is possible like I'm some eight year old child who wants Santa to be real. So uh, quite ironic that you would complain about ad hominems, wouldn't you say? I'm not saying you have to like having your view criticized, but obviously, don't single me out if you do the same. Most people on forums do criticize each other's views. Many members on this topic did just that. So I'm not sure what the big deal is, here.
"I have written of my views more than several times. I will not dignify your accusation by repeating them."
Well, I genuinely don't know of these factors you spoke of, and it would be helpful, and frankly, interesting, if you did list them. You don't even need to explain them, just listing them would be helpful. It might be that you did mention them, but it's hard to find where you did because you also did a lot of rambling, so maybe it was difficult for me to find.
"Again, you state "factors in play when it comes to a one time event" when in fact I wrote of factors as they relate over a period of time, Not a one time event in time"
Well, I'm quoting the last post that you made, so that seems pretty reasonable to me, I would think. Here's what you just said on page 246, post #4917:
"That other factors are in play relative to a one time event."
So, you did speak of a one-time event, there. Maybe there is some nuance to this I didn't catch, but that's certainly not completely twisting your statement. What I claimed you said was based almost on a direct quote. I'm not sure how high your standards are, they must be incredibly high. If I got something wrong, you can simply clear it up.
They're on a different planet, you only have to watch their bullet and blitz. I'd give CM /NMs on their best day a slim chance of pulling the upset versus a super GM on his worst but anyone lower than master (2200 -2250) forget it.
are we talking about beating someone at chess or
something else like russian roulette?
greenibex wrote:
are we talking about beating someone at chess or
something else like russian roulette?
Chess. Russian roulette odds are just 1/6, yes?
Assuming the 2700 isn't intentionally forfeiting the game or dying during the game as some people have morbidly pointed out, I see a couple improbably but theoretically possible ways this could happen.
The most likely scenario is that the 2700 accidentally touches an important piece (king or queen) without saying "adjust" (for whatever reason, probably on accident) -- the 1300 calls him out on it and TD says the 2700 must move the piece which ends up being a fatal move (e.g. loses the queen, king's only legal move causes him to move into a mate in 2 net).
Another possibility is that the 2700 has an external (non-chess) cause which makes him eat up a large portion of his clock. For example, playing a G/45 action tournament but suddenly has diarrhea and wastes like 30-35 minutes using the bathroom. He figures he can take out the 1300 with less than 10 minutes and goes to poop his brains out while he leaves his clock running. When the 2700 returns the 1300 happens to play some of the best chess he's ever played in a complex position and forces the 2700 to get into even more severe time trouble and simply overlooks a semi-difficult tactic which the 1300 luckily happens to find with all the time on his clock. The 1300 wins significant material (maybe 2 pieces or a rook) where even he knows just to trade off as much as possible and the 2700 simply doesn't have time to figure out how to overcome the deficit.
Or the 2700 has some deeply disturbing issues (e.g. wife just divorced him, child just dies, mom overdosed on heroin, etc). He decides to play some chess to keep his mind off his personal problems, but the plan backfires and he finds that he cannot stop being negative and his chess ability suffers greatly. The distractions are so bad that he ends up blundering multiple times and loses.
Bottom line: Yes, there is a chance. Is it likely? Hell no. Might not even happen in our lifetimes, but theoretically it is possible.
+1 for misterbasic
easy...just drop a NZT-48 pill 5 minutes before the game and you'll be right...however, you better read all you can on opening, middle game and end game theory...apparently this helps.
What exactly is the point of even discussing what if this happened, what if that happened ??
Geez. I could make up a 1000 such examples. You could all argue about the feasibility of a specific case. All such talk is usekess.
The real question- Does a 1300 posses the skill set to win the game, specifically after a GM blunders such as Gelfand did in the original question/ the example given.
Too funny these scenarios, runaway imaginations.
Romantics dreaming of one day winning.
I still think it boils down to, there is a truly real (not just "mathematical") chance of any nonzero probability, it just, at a certain point, becomes impossible to imagine or relate to. Like a human trying to perceive of a billionth of a centimeter. Due to vision/brain limitations it can't be done, even though such a size does actually exist.
As binary says, just because it's never practical to believe in such ridiculous odds, doesn't mean they're not real. We can separate between what things are possible and worth hoping for, and what's possible but not worth hoping for.
And again it's telling that the cutoff we use for deciding that something is "basically completely zero" is subjective and dependent on the situation: for trivial things, a 1 in 1000 chance might as well be zero, but a 1 in 1000 chance of a food product distributed all over the country being poisonous might be a serious issue. I wouldn't say either of these cases were based on some kind of philosophical analysis like what mdinnerspace has been doing. In fact quite the opposite, what we decided to do in each of these examples was a totally practical matter.