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

Flawed logic or no, the right move would eventually be made. Even if for the wrong reasons. I've made the right move, thinking I was going to accomplish something else entirely, but it turned out I was just lucky being right for another reason.

Conflagration_Planet wrote:

Flawed logic or no, the right move would eventually be made. Even if for the wrong reasons. I've made the right move, thinking I was going to accomplish something else entirely, but it turned out I was just lucky being right for another reason.

Exactly. I also think a 1300 plays much better than an RMG and thus his chances will be much better to beat the GM.

For example: the RMG will usually miss mate in one if other moves are possible, the 1300 will often see and execute mate in one and thus needs less lucky moves.

For the record, I think a 1300 will have an overwhelming score against a RMG, but the RMG has a (really minutely slim) chance against a GM, while the 1300 has no chance at all.

Sunshiny wrote:

The probability is so minuscule 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.

Nobody said one set of outcomes affects other outcomes. That's called maturity of chances, which doesn't exist. As to the rest of your statement,   it might not happen in our life time, or even the universes life time, but given an infinite amount of time, it would happen. Not just once, but an infinite amount of times. This proves that at any given time, it could happen. Though the odds are so high against it, it's a good bet it won't happen in our, or the universes life time.

Conflagration_Planet wrote:

Though the odds are so high against it, it's a good bet it won't happen in our, or the universes life time.

That's my point. We don't have an infinite amount of time to prove it.

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

What you're saying here is "The probability is non-zero, it's zero."

Forget about practical timescales, no-ones suggested we actually try and make this happen. The question is whether there is any chance, and clearly the answer is yes.

Low probability events rarely happen and when they do some other

explanation arises - so if a 1300 beat a GM people would be pretty

sure he cheated.

beardogjones wrote:

Low probability events rarely happen and when they do some other

explanation arises - so if a 1300 beat a GM people would be pretty

sure he cheated.

But they do happen. I would think he cheated too, simply because the odds are indeed so high against it, but this being said, it's still not virtually impossible.

Tmb86 wrote:

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

What you're saying here is "The probability is non-zero, it's zero."

Forget about practical timescales, no-ones suggested we actually try and make this happen. The question is whether there is any chance, and clearly the answer is yes.

Agree.

I seriously don't think a 1300 could beat a 2700, unless the 2700 is drunk from drinking Miller High Life or something like that. I don't think it is impossible for a 1300 to beat a 2700, though.

I'm not sure if someone mentioned this, but what if their cell phone rings too many times and the td makes them automatically lose? Then the 1300 would win, but I think that the probability that they would be paired one on one in a tourney would be about the same as the chance of the 1300 winning.

Tmb86 wrote:

Forget about practical timescales, no-ones suggested we actually try and make this happen. The question is whether there is any chance, and clearly the answer is yes.

Yes. It is the probability that, with the beginner picking random moves, the master gets beaten.

But the question is the same as whether you could win 100 times in a row at the casino. The answer is yes, but that's not really interesting to know...

It reminds me of the joke between a mathematician and an engineer. They had a bet to see which person can reach the goal line by stepping half the distance towards the line for each move. The mathematician found it impossible. The engineer said "Close enough."*

*The joke isn't the same as told. I think i got it... close enough.

Anyway, the point is, it's close enough to impossible to say that it's not going to happen.

Well that depends on what interests you, Irontiger. I think it's interesting how many people are unable to differentiate between impossible and improbable - and even understand what 'improbable' actually means. It is entirely possible if we were to arrange this match that the 1300 would win the very first game. Improbable, but possible. You're probably more interested in the occurance of improbabilities when they occur in your life as coincidences and such.

Or perhaps you are interested when your 0.000154% (close to impossible?) chance of hitting a royal flush comes good.

...

Estragon wrote:
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.

How do you define "practical chance?" Does it mean any odds greater than one in a million or something? I'm not sure about the precise distinction you're making between the theoretical chance and the practical chance. If you mean practical in terms of, can I ever expect it to happen in my lifetime, then I of course agree with you.

Here's the thing: let's assume that every precise keystroke that would produce Shakespeare isn't impossible for a monkey to hit (it doesn't matter if this is true or not; the assumption is there just to make a point), and thus, all you need is a lot of time for everything to align and for it to actually happen.

For example, let's even take the above paragraph I wrote. I don't think there is some physical force that keeps the monkey from typing in "Here's, space, the, space, thing, colon." Even the colon could possibly be hit -- I don't think there is a physical force making it impossible to hit two keys at approximately the same time. It's just that there are so many other possibilities, so it would be very hard for all of these possible things to align themselves so precisely, and yet there is nothing that really restricts it as one possibility out of infinite.

I would most certainly think it would take more than a million years for the monkeys to type Shakespeare. Ten to the 350th power is probably closer to the mark -- but it doesn't matter. That will eventually happen in infinity, too. If you had that many years to wait, you could expect it to happen, and with infinity, you do have that.

Valentin: If you could randomize every single move of chess you played, then a chance will exist. For example, if I pick my first move randomly (I would use a random number generator, of course), then there is a 1 in 20 something chance I will randomly pick 1 e4, a good move, and so on.

Or let's say there are 100 possible strokes (Including those with shift) on a keyboard. Then there is a 1 in 100 chance that I will pick the first correct letter for Hamlet, and so on.

This might be a better way to put it because that would perfect the randomness. I think the monkeys are just mentioned because they make for a cute example

The sequence "How can I compare thee to a Summer's day" has the exact same probability to be churned out by a random character generator / monkey as every other sequence of equal length. This seems to be the key point Estragon and Valentin are missing. A particular sequence of 30 or so brilliant chess moves has the exact same probability to be churned out by a random move generator / 1300 as a particular sequence of absolute bunk.

The only thing is, the complete works of Shakespeare and a flawless chess game are both a ridiculously miniscule subset of the possible outcomes available.

Nothing is impossible for politicians and statisticians.

In both cases, you just need some patience...

Tmb: Yeah, I think mentioning the random character (or move) generator purifies the randomness concept, making the point more clear. If a move is just randomly picked, then the correct move being picked has absolutely nothing to do with skill.