lol how are ppl still posting in this.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
I say no way. Maybe if that 2700 started off without a rook and queen
I am around 1300, and I would be able to do it. All I would need is a chessboard and chess pieces, a 2700 ranked player, and a AK-47.
You know who's evil?!
BUMP!
chess_gg wrote:
Here's what I think. The OP is an imbecile.
I'll bet he won't even notice that I said this.
because it was two years ago, gramps.
chess_gg wrote:
Another example, I suppose, of how you are not stalking me...right, asshole?
btw...that was a joke. He does come by periodically. Duh...
not sure if you are talking to me. Kind of a weird, almost creepy, post. not sure who you are.
chess_gg wrote:
You just wanted to post for posterity that I called you an asshole. If the shoe fits...
?? not sure why you are calling me an asshole.
Check out Chess.com University's online summer chess camp:
http://www.chess.com/news/chesscom-universitys-online-chess-camp-with-gm-boris-gelfand---official-announcement-8349
Boris Gelfand, one of the instructors of the camp, is a 2700+ rated super-GM.
Chess is a language; the GMs speak fluently and the rest not so much; for them to lose in this fashion is an elocutionist losing a debate to a mute.
Genius, if you post these ads here, I'm gonna be forced to contribute notes in the university. Unlike your faculty there, I do have advanced degrees. ;-)
You may have advanced degrees but no administrative power :P
As the OP and the imbecile(Oh why i just called myself imbecile, please search around some older posts for that!), I can suggest that 1300 people should to go to this camp, not to attend but to play against Gelfand. Beat him, and the Q is answered. Lose and the Q remains unaswered because that doesn't mean there is no chance, then there is only thing that I can say, keep playing! (I suddenly felt very great by unleashing tons of players on Gelfand, I dunno why!)
Yes there is a chance but only if the 2700 wants to lose and thats normally not the case...
Only there's no way to use computer assistance to win the lottery.
Way back in the day, I knocked Joe Louis to the canvas. Then only a couple years later, I for some reason, had dropped two weight classes and knocked out Jake LaMotta. Somehow, though, after both of those fights, I lost to club fighters in little towns.
JoseO wrote:
Not entirely true since there are wheeling systems that help improve the odds of winning a lottery but essentially your statement is correct.
If you implying that wheeling systems give you positive EV, I would like to see the mathematical argument.
When I was 17 I convinced myself that there must be an advantage to a wheeling strategy. I was convinced enough (and probably bored enough) that I ran the combinatorial probabilities thoroughly. Conclusion? Your odds per dollar spent are exactly the same. Not a little better, not a little worse, exactly the same.
I'd never heard of a wheeling strategy until just now, though. I thought it was something I'd invented.
bigpoison wrote:
Way back in the day, I knocked Joe Louis to the canvas. Then only a couple years later, I for some reason, had dropped two weight classes and knocked out Jake LaMotta. Somehow, though, after both of those fights, I lost to club fighters in little towns.
"Joe Louis was a gentleman; a real gentleman."
TheGrobe wrote:
When I was 17 I convinced myself that there must be an advantage to a wheeling strategy. I was convinced enough (and probably bored enough) that I ran the combinatorial probabilities thoroughly. Conclusion? Your odds per dollar spent are exactly the same. Not a little better, not a little worse, exactly the same.
I'd never heard of a wheeling strategy until just now, though. I thought it was something I'd invented.
That is impressive to come up with on your own, but I agree with your math. There is no advantage to be gained. Might as well ask the oracle.
hi