Funny you should bring that up. My worst game I ever played in my life was in that very same line, only my opponent didn't miss the mate. Game over in 6 moves. Granted it was a blitz game and I had never seen Qe2 before, but it was still no excuse.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 two 1300 players - combined they would be the equivalent of a 2600 player - definitely a reasonable match for a 2700

That HAS to a joke.

What about two 1300 players - combined they would be the equivalent of a 2600 player - definitely a reasonable match for a 2700

That HAS to a joke.

No, it was the beginning of an insidious plan to merge ten 1300 rated players into one ultimate chess machine.

What about two 1300 players - combined they would be the equivalent of a 2600 player - definitely a reasonable match for a 2700

That HAS to a joke.

No, it was the beginning of an insidious plan to merge ten 1300 rated players into one ultimate chess machine.

Great idea. Down right brilliant! There'll be a Nobel Prize in chess given for this.

That HAS to a joke.

No, it was the beginning of an insidious plan to merge ten 1300 rated players into one ultimate chess machine.

Come on man, I told you about my insidious plan in confidence! How dare you tell everyone my secret!

It was going to look something like this, but without the eye patch . . .

[mod: no spam please]Join Join Join !!!

Hey, quit advertising please, it's not nice.

That HAS to a joke.

Come on man, I told you about my insidious plan in confidence! How dare you tell everyone my secret!

It was going to look something like this, but without the eye patch . . .

lol

Don't forget the sword.

Masters aren't that strong.

http://www.chess.com/games/results?f=7179439

Especially http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=343387

Especially http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=343387

Funny you should bring that up. My worst game I ever played in my life was in that very same line, only my opponent didn't miss the mate. Game over in 6 moves. Granted it was a blitz game and I had never seen Qe2 before, but it was still no excuse.

The original game is quite probably this one:

http://www.chess.com/article/view/keres-wins-at-six-moves

:) Was inspiration that game.

A colleague in Scotland-Team remembered the lesson:

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=44141176

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.

Masters aren't that strong.

http://www.chess.com/games/results?f=7179439

Especially http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=343387

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.

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.

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.

your friend was mistaken