Near Zero

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

If the players play in such a way that their skill is separated by 1400 points, then the chance to win is zero. Not very very small, but zero.

But in practice people play above and below their ratings, are not rated correctly in the first place, do not play all positions equally well, etc. In practical terms it's a very small chance, but it's not zero.

Spoken with the precision of a true engineer. Thanks.

@Estragon has his point too. Not sure if the OP ever had one.

I liked your post, Valentin (just a touch rude with the last line). Now I'm no probability theorist - I grant you, but I picked up a thing or two during my degree.

What your post makes painfully evident you don't understand (hey look, I can be rude too!) is that while you might think the sequence of letters involved in the works of Shakespeare are particularly 'skilled', and therefore improbable - the fact is they are exactly as (un)likely as any other sequence of characters of the same length.

Did you know if you flip a coin 10 times, the sequence HHHHHHHHHH is just as likely as HTTHHTTTHT? Well, obviously you didn't, but it is. On every flip the probability of either outcome is 0.5, and that doesn't change because of the previous outcome. Do you see the point here?

I'll outline it for you, it's exactly the same with chess. The only difference between chess and the coin toss is that, as an estimation, there are on average 30 'bad' moves in a position and maybe only 2 'good' ones. So it's kind of like flipping a coin with 30 faces. A particular sequence of a 45 move game with entirely 'good' moves is just as improbable as a particular sequence of a 45 'bad' move game. The reason you will be waiting a long time to see the 'good' game, is that they are much less numerous than the possible 'bad' games.

Keep playing great chess mate.

I'll outline it for you, it's exactly the same with chess. The only difference between chess and the coin toss is that, as an estimation, there are on average 30 'bad' moves in a position and maybe only 2 'good' ones. So it's kind of like flipping a coin with 30 faces. Do you see what I mean? And a particular sequence of a 45 move game with entirely 'good' moves is just as improbable as a particular sequence of a 45 'bad' move game. The reason you will be waiting a long time to see the 'good' game, is that they are much less numerous than the possible 'bad' games.

Keep playing great chess mate.

with the added complication that in a completely random situation your 30 sided coin has a 1/30 chance of hitting the good move every time, while the 1300 player would often actively discard this move. 1300's are drawn to inferior moves like GM's are drawn to good ones.

The problem with your probability is that there is an outside influence on those moves. That influence is the chess player and the player's skill level.

That's interesting, rooperi. Personally I was envisioning a random move generator, but now the question becomes who would beat a GM quicker, a random move generator, or a 1300. Lol.

I'll outline it for you, it's exactly the same with chess. The only difference between chess and the coin toss is that, as an estimation, there are on average 30 'bad' moves in a position and maybe only 2 'good' ones. So it's kind of like flipping a coin with 30 faces. Do you see what I mean? And a particular sequence of a 45 move game with entirely 'good' moves is just as improbable as a particular sequence of a 45 'bad' move game. The reason you will be waiting a long time to see the 'good' game, is that they are much less numerous than the possible 'bad' games.

Keep playing great chess mate.

with the added complication that in a completely random situation your 30 sided coin has a 1/30 chance of hitting the good move every time, while the 1300 player would often actively discard this move. 1300's are drawn to inferior moves like GM's are drawn to good ones.

...and as using a dice is prohibited by the rules, the 1300 player still has a long way to go to get his (1/30)^40 chance to draw the game

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!

It's subject to randomness in the sense that the monkeys would eventually make the right key strokes geven an infinite amount of time. Same with chess. Given an infinite amount of time, the patzer would eventually make the winning moves even if it's by dumb luck.

I've seen Valentin's mistake made countless times, pointing out that a sequence of 10 heads is as probable as 10 other tosses is usually enough to help people understand.

Still, he did get to use the phrase 'uniform probability distribution', and tell me I should study probability, so that's something I guess.

I wonder if he's the kind of guy who can admit when he's very arrogantly said something which is wrong...

I've seen Valentin's mistake made countless times, pointing out that 10 heads is as probable as 10 other tosses is usually enough to help people understand.

Still, he did get to use the phrase 'uniform probability distribution', and tell me I should study probability, so that's something I guess.

Some people refuse to, even then. They just can't understand that the moves that make a great chess game, and the letters that make up Shakespear's writings have no meaning except to humans, and could occur randomly just like anything else, and would, given a long enough time.

The probability is so miniscule that it won't happen. One set of chess moves and bunch of letters does not affect the probability for other sets of chess moves and bunches of letters. So if you hit every other combination of coin flips, does not mean the one combination missed will be coming up next or soon.

"The probability is so miniscule that it won't happen"

That's wrong.

" One set of chess moves...etc."

That's right.

True, it is wrong because it has that smaller than .0000000000000000000001 chance that it will hit, but it's there. Time is limited. We don't have that time to wait and see if it comes true, therefore i said it won't happen.

That's interesting, rooperi. Personally I was envisioning a random move generator, but now the question becomes who would beat a GM quicker, a random move generator, or a 1300. Lol.

I really think that might be the crux of the matter. Truly random moves will eventually beat the GM, the 1300 never will, because it's not completely random, it's based on flawed logic, strategy, tactics, everything. He might consider the correct move everytime, but will frequently discard it because of poor understanding.

In golf, for exmple, it's not the quality of the good shots that seperate a pro from an amateur, it's the quality of the bad shots. Believe me, my bad shots are so bad that no amount of lucky 50ft putts are gonna let me beat Tiger Woods.

Same with chess, the 1300's mistakes are just so much worse.

That may be so, but surely flawed logic is better than no logic at all. Think of all those trillions of games where the RMG plays 24 incredible moves, has the GM against the wall, then when it comes to delivering mate plays a pointless king move.

That may be so, but surely flawed logic is better than no logic at all. Think of all those trillions of games where the RMG plays 24 incredible moves, has the GM against the wall, then when it comes to delivering mate plays a pointless king move.

I really dont think so. Remember, on the other side of th board from the 1300 sits a 2700, who sets deep plans and traps. Your RMG has a chance to get the correct move by luck, the 1300 will just crack like an egg.

(edit)

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

this does not make sense, is doesn't matter how often the lotto is draw is still 1 in 14 million chance of winning it.