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


  • 45 hours ago · Quote · #4901

    DjonniDerevnja

    The biggest upset from a simultan  today.  IM Johan Salomon only is ca 1000 rating above me, but he was able to defeat me. He got an advantage I couldnt defend from move ten.

  • 44 hours ago · Quote · #4902

    mdinnerspace

    vahsek32 wrote:

    actually possible, Harold Dondis beat Bobby Fischer in a simul, although he was an 1800.

    I once beat a I'M. I was 1600. The terms were after every piece or pawn captured, a shot of tequila was taken by the capturing side. Needless to say, I proceeded to lose anything and everything, careful not to be mated. Just before my last piece faced certain death (Obviously the King) poor ole Igor passed out and lost on time.

    Does this count?

  • 41 hours ago · Quote · #4903

    Elubas

    richie_and_oprah wrote:

    Some people would prefer to keep arguing rather than learn and move on in life.

    This is why we have forums?

    Well, talking is fun, a lot of times, isn't it? It's a lot more personal than just indirectly listening to a youtube video or something, there's interaction. Surely, forums aren't aimed for the most 100% accurate learning, and that's quite ok. Sure, I think it's good to research things too, but one can do both. I've looked at academic papers and high level videos on issues like this before, but I also like to discuss things in a more casual setting. It's just human I guess.

  • 39 hours ago · Quote · #4904

    thekillerlemon

    stop sending me meseges

     

  • 39 hours ago · Quote · #4905

    thekillerlemon

    angry.png

  • 38 hours ago · Quote · #4906

    mdinnerspace

    10,000 years into the future, mankind will witness what may be the most spectacular devastation in our entire existence. Proven to be inevitable, two massive black holes are set to have the ultimate collision of all time.

    One of these black holes weighs around 140 million suns. Its competitor, the OJ 287, is determined to be the most massive black hole in the known universe—weighing around 18 billion Suns.

  • 38 hours ago · Quote · #4907

    mdinnerspace

    Kinda like a 1300 vs 2700.

  • 37 hours ago · Quote · #4908

    richie_and_oprah


  • 37 hours ago · Quote · #4909

    Elubas

    Good stuff! :) Gotta love arguing.

  • 37 hours ago · Quote · #4910

    soonhuatlee

    Blitz game and the 2700 comes late

  • 35 hours ago · Quote · #4911

    0110001101101000

    mdinnerspace wrote:

    Yes, I understand the practical use of statistics and probabilities and how they are applied. It represents a powerful tool of our understanding. That being said, I reserve my thoughts that numbers may not represent the true nature of a given event occurring in the future. To think in absolute terms is a mistake imo.

    Hmm, so maybe your idea is sort of... "it's so incredibly unlikely, that it's best to assume it will never happen in reality." And that's true, I agree. I'm also going to live my life day to day assuming it will never happen. And if someone told me they did it, I wouldn't believe them.

    So regarding the highlighted part of your quote, I guess I just want to say the math isn't saying all heads or all tails is possible... well, at least that's somewhat misrepresenting it. The math part is only counting the possible outcomes. Realizing that none of these outcomes if favored over the other is just a common sense observation (the point I'd like you to agree with). Believing that no one will ever predict a sequence and then flip that same sequence is also a common sense idea (your main point I think, that I will agree with).

  • 34 hours ago · Quote · #4912

    JihadZM

    There A Kid Beat A IM And Now He GrandMaster 

    See : http://ow.ly/Loy9303Bikn

  • 34 hours ago · Quote · #4913

    isaacnewt

  • 32 hours ago · Quote · #4914

    mdinnerspace

    011 writes:

    Believing that no one will ever predict a sequence and then flip that same sequence is also a common sense idea (your main point I think, that I will agree with)

    I have been thinking along the line of very large numbers. Predicting a seguence of all tails, all heads or anything in between of HTTH coin flips may not be practicable for humans in a 1 in 10 million chanch. A computer simply predicts all possibilities. Flip a coin 10 million times and a pattern shows itself, proving that pattern was a possibility. I'm looking forward to further research on probabilities.

    Reminds me of the old days of the lottery. Odds of winning were say 1 in 5 million. Jack-pot reaches over 50 million. A few very rich risk takers would lay down 5 million cash for every possible combination. The State quickly put an end to that idea.

  • 13 hours ago · Quote · #4915

    Elubas

    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.

  • 12 hours ago · Quote · #4916

    144p

    Dont know.Dont care.

  • 5 hours ago · Quote · #4917

    mdinnerspace

    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.

  • 5 hours ago · Quote · #4918

    Rookiemonsters

    i dont think there is any chance

  • 3 hours ago · Quote · #4919

    benonidoni

    You'll find out next week when the chess olympics start. Laughing


Back to Top

Post your reply: