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

"Not to mention Cantor's theory where there are exist infinite infinities, where one infinity is bigger than the other"

I've recently wondered about his theory a bit, and I find some things strange about it. He gives that example where there is always some number that can't be accounted for no matter what set you have, but I would think you could just have in that set a rule where your set keeps changing to accomodate for those new numbers (it's not like you would run out of room in doing so). Which is weird, but then again infinity is weird.

I agree. So I think his stressing of nothing being nothing at all, NO REALLY I MEAN NOTHING kind of talk was incorrect. He just meant devoid of things we commonly think of as fundamental elements of existence such as time and space.

Because to add to this, I mean, surely, we know what he's talking about when he says a point of nothingness, right? I know that I would never "find" it. I know that it wouldn't feel warm, hot, etc. I know it would never move and attack me. So it seems like it's not crazy to talk about true nothingness, even if we use a framework to do so.

"He just meant devoid of things we commonly think of as fundamental elements of existence such as time and space."

Yeah. And I don't think it's silly to think about the existence of the number 3 just because we can't feel it or touch it. So what? It's clearly still something worth talking about. And it does seem like we are imagining "something" when thinking about "nothing," it's just something different from what we're used to talking about. I don't think that means it's invalid.

As far as interesting concepts like "what is it we're thinking of when we imagine nothingness?" It's interesting what language can express. I thought I read this last night, but now I can't find it...

But I thought I read "a number which no human will ever think of."

It's queer because it's a thought about a thought no one will ever have 

No, I didn't mean nothingness is invalid. Just that it's not very manageable by our way of thinking. I think we always mean nothing in reference to something. As in "this box is empty" but we know it has air inside. But if we try to think of literally nothing, it's not what we're used to (as you said). The language isn't descriptive enough and it's completely outside of our experience. So we do things like I did and try to add adjectives like "true" nothing... whatever that's supposed to mean.

I guess that's why philosophers write such thick books. You need a chapter just to define a word they're going to use 5 chapters later in a statement haha.

"But I thought I read "a number which no human will ever think of.""

Yup! I saw that in a Bertrand Russel passage, although he probably didn't invent that example. He used that to argue that, we don't just think of things in terms of their actual instances, we sometimes only understand things with abstract concepts. Because some people want to say, all we mean by "3" is just that it's a word we use whenever we see three boxes, three birds, etc, that we only use the word when paired with a physical observation, and that "three" has no meaning in itself.

But then we can come up with examples where we are literally not describing any real physical instance that is occurring, yet we understand what that sentence means. We literally can't be just describing us seeing a number that no one ever thought of, else it wouldn't be such a number, but we definitely understand what that sentence means.

But yeah, it's really cool how sophisticated human language is. Our understanding goes way beyond just individual physical objects or occurences.

"I think we always mean nothing in reference to something"

It certainly seems that way. But again there are those statements that don't refer to any presentable object (in your number example) yet seem to be a legitimate claim. The problem is, if we want the "nothing" that includes no references, we have to come across it without using reference :) It seems like we can sort of understand true nothingness, it's just that when we try to "represent it" or "point to it" then we defeat its purpose (because it's something that isn't pointed to).

Sort of like how we kind of understand infinity, yet we sometimes still wonder, what's at the end? Even though the whole point of infinity is that there is no end.

So I can say that there is some true nothingness, but I can't tell you anything about it, and that's why it's there :) Perhaps in realizing what makes us fail in understanding true nothingness, is what'll help us understand it. Even if we'll never be able to represent it.

Yeah I think the "number no one thought of" thing appeared in Russel's "The Problems of Philosophy" or something like that. It's probably available somewhere, maybe I'll start digging into that haha.

Where did I read it! I don't remember lol.
[edit, oh, it was here (link) in one of your topics] 

I confused it for being here:

This article was posted in a different chess.com forum
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/?single_page=true

And it gets into language a bit. Interestingly they talk about how it's likely that when, what we think of as thought, first evolved that language wasn't necessary because most people couldn't think. So interestingly our language isn't optimized for communication, it's more dependent on how we internally process information.

A quote from the link:

There are things you just can't say, for some reason. So if I say, "The mechanics fixed the cars". And you say, "They wondered if the mechanics fixed the cars." You can ask questions about the cars, "How many cars did they wonder if the mechanics fixed?" More or less okay. Suppose you want to ask a question about the mechanics. "How many mechanics did they wonder if fixed the cars?" Somehow it doesn't work, can't say that. It's a fine thought, but you can't say it. Well, if you look into it in detail, the most efficient computational rules prevent you from saying it. But for expressing thought, for communication, it'd be better if you could say it -- so that's a conflict.

I refer you again to #3175.

Sometimes my playing strength is 1000 and sometimes it is 2000. And everywhere in between. I don't use engines. So why does my rating strength have a huge range like this???

Lasker... you are absolutely right. Never. If you've read previous posts, the only arguement is the monkey and typewriter nonsense that trys to say otherwise. I have gone as far as 100 vs 3000 and a few say yea.. a possibility! How the mind can work!

When I was age 15 and Chess instructor for the City of Decatur Illinois. I had some very long streaks of consecutive wins with no loses or draws. [way over 1000] During those streaks, at times, I would blunder and lose my queen. Nevertheless, I won all such games.

Losing a queen does not necessarily mean you will lose the game.

Nevertheless, the title of this forum is silly.  The answer is: "Yes, of course it is possible!"

Put another way: will there ever, in the history of chess, be a FIDE rated game at classical time controls between a legit 1300* and a 2700 FIDE rated player where the 1300 wins?

No, probably not. 

_____________

* If the 1300 cheats, it's not legit.

Here is why a monkey will never type Shakespeare. This is reality, not a mind game of hypotheticals. Put him a room with a typwriter. The same result happens every time. The typewriter gets broken. Every time from now till eternity. The arguement that well.... given enough time he would succeed... is irrational.

Um... so your argument is that, because it is unlikely one monkey will succeed if you have him type for one hour, that therefore no amount of monkeys or amounts of time will do? Doesn't really follow... things do kinda change when you increase the numbers. One person recycling means little, but if you have billions of those individuals recycle it means a lot.

Maybe you're trying to say, it's "clear" to you that any monkey you put in front of you will fail to type shakespeare, that just intuitively you grasp that? And generally, that intuition won't fail you. There are lots of things I simply find obviously true when I really know they are more like 95% likely to be true (not the monkey situation of course). But sometimes, even if not often, they do just turn out false, that's kinda just how it is, which shows that my idea of something that seems to be true, just being reality, well it has to be qualified. There is this inevitable limitation of human knowledge that can't actually weed out these tiny doubts. These doubts aren't potent, but they simply are there.

I have a feeling people do have trouble with the idea of a small chance happening after a large amount of tries. Like, I wonder if a lot of people would be scared if they had to take a risk where, a random number generator (from 1 to a million) has to hit the number 234891, and you get a million tries for it to happen. They figure, well every try is "pretty much zero chance," therefore every time you try you will have no hope, therefore it's hopeless.

The problem is, you can't just look at one try at a time and get an accurate picture of things (because that would only be looking at 1/1000000th of all of your potential chances). On any given try your odds are not good, but you will constantly be able to get another try. You never expect it to hit 234891 on any given try you're on, whenever it happens you will be surprised, but you have a million tries to be surprised. If you're not surprised on the first try, it doesn't matter because being surprised on any of the other 999,999 tries will do.

Probably not. :)

I'm not sure why a monkey would persist in an activity for even one hour in an activity that was providing it no benefit...