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

:) Was inspiration that game.

A colleague in Scotland-Team remembered the lesson:

I say if the 1300 just divorced, had no sleep, was sick, unconcentrated because someone kept throwing sand at him, blindfolded and played a game of cards at the same time. The 2700 might just stand a chance of winning.
Or the 1300 would just lose equally bad.

Scottrf wrote:

Masters aren't that strong.

lol

A friend told me that the ratings are set up so a 1000 player has a 1 in 10 chance of winning an 1100 player. So if this is correct a 1300 player would have a 1 in 100,000,000,000,000 chance. 1 in one hundred trillion. So your saying there is a chance! Also take into consideration that in playing that many games, which is not possible, your score would improve for sure.

What about the other 5 games?

Well I sure as hell can't, so nope.

Rasparovov wrote:

I say if the 1300 just divorced, had no sleep, was sick, unconcentrated because someone kept throwing sand at him, blindfolded and played a game of cards at the same time. The 2700 might just stand a chance of winning.
Or the 1300 would just lose equally bad.

You've got the ratings reversed.

I think he was being ironic.

I once played a player rated 1400 in a USCF-rated tournament game, blundered my Queen, ended up with King and three pawns vs King, Queen, and Bishop, and he offered me a draw when he had a forced checkmate available.

My biggest upset is beating a 2200 when I was rated 1280 or so (900+ points) in a rated tournament game.

saminslc wrote:

A friend told me that the ratings are set up so a 1000 player has a 1 in 10 chance of winning an 1100 player. So if this is correct a 1300 player would have a 1 in 100,000,000,000,000 chance. 1 in one hundred trillion. So your saying there is a chance! Also take into consideration that in playing that many games, which is not possible, your score would improve for sure.

Well, I Think that we have pritty much covered this topic.

thehedgehog2000 wrote:

1 in 10? When I was 1600 I beat a guy who was 2200 and drew a 2100 in the same tournament.

A great achievement, but there's a 600 point and 500 point spread.  The OP asks about a 1400 point spread.  As x approaches zero and all that . . .

Estragon wrote:
thehedgehog2000 wrote:

1 in 10? When I was 1600 I beat a guy who was 2200 and drew a 2100 in the same tournament.

A great achievement, but there's a 600 point and 500 point spread.  The OP asks about a 1400 point spread.  As x approaches zero and all that . . .

Hey wait ! It did happen ...right here.

Yes, there's a chance -- if the 2700-rated player is asleep, or in a strong charitable mode , or if the 1300-rated player is incorrectly rated (and really ought to be 2500+).  Otherwise, the chance of a brick falling from the sky to hit your head is higher, so don't bet on it (if you want to keep your money, that is).

Yet again, it seems some people are confusing extremely low chance, with impossibility.

_valentin_ wrote:

Yes, there's a chance -- if the 2700-rated player is asleep, or in a strong charitable mode , or if the 1300-rated player is incorrectly rated (and really ought to be 2500+).  Otherwise, the chance of a brick falling from the sky to hit your head is higher, so don't bet on it (if you want to keep your money, that is).

2700 > 2500

Elubas wrote:

Yet again, it seems some people are confusing extremely low chance, with impossibility.

No.  Some people misunderstand the limits of probability.

For instance, the common misconception that a million monkeys on a million keyboards for a million years would at some point produce the works of Shakespeare is pure rubbish.  They might possibly produce in the process a couple of lines - if you don't count for line breaks or capitalization or punctuation. Random entries will not produce specific results.

You can get the 2700 player flying drunk and distract him with two lovely ladies, and he will still beat the 1300 player 100% of the time.

Statistics may provide a theoretical possibility which is infinitesimal, but that doesn't mean there is any practical chance it will occur.  It's not a random matter, there is skill involved.

It's you who's misunderstanding probability, Estragon. The monkey thing is a case in point. It would probably take the monkeys longer than the age of the universe to re-create Shakespeare - but the fact of the matter is, since the probability of it occuring is non-zero, it will eventually happen.

The odds of winning the lottery is about 1 in 14 million, yet people win it every week.

Tmb86:  Please re-read Estragon's argument carefully.  The essence of it is that Shakespeare and chess aren't subject to randomness -- rather, they are governed by skill.  If it was all randomness (as is the case with lottery), then there's a small practical chance indeed.

But true randomness implies uniform probability distribution (i.e., the chance of one outcome is exactly the same as the chance of any other individual outcome).  This is true about the lottery -- the chance of one number (or a set of numbers) coming up, given that we have no extra information, is exactly the same as the chance of any other number (or set of numbers).

However, this same argument cannot be applied with Shakespeare and chess -- because the chance of winning a game depends on executing a sequence of strong moves (at least stronger than your opponent's).  While a single strong move here and there might just come up for the beginner, it won't suffice in the end for winning, because the game is cumulative, i.e., the moves are not independent the same way that the numbers in the lottery are.

So I suggest studying some probability theory first before commenting on the subject of it!

I'm kind of with estragon here. Just because there is a non-zero probability doesn't mean there is a 100% actuality.

The number of events (whatever probability) which will never occur is infinitely larger than the number of events which will.