There is also the infinitesimal chance that an atom-sized black hole conduit to another universe's white hole opens up and swallows the 2700 player's brain, but the rest of the tourney is beyond the event horizon and escapes...the black hole will eventually destroy the earth, of course, but not before the 1300 gets their official win.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
Being a huge fan of good sci-fi I could see that happening btickler. Make for a good short story with a chess theme included.
mdinnerspace wrote:
"The probability is so small" to quote the opposing viewpoint. Reality says otherwise. The probability is a big fat 0.00000 to infinity. A roulette ball lands on red. What are the chances it will land on red 1 million times in a row? Proponents will say there is the possibility, given x amounts of spins. This is nonsense. Peoples brains being fooled. Illogical. At some point the math is no longer valid. 1000 times in a row, open debate. Where statistical odds break down I do not know. But the point is 1 million in a row? Yet some will argue it's a possibility.
small probability does not mean zero, anything above zero is possible, though very unlikely. Can you imagine playing for billions of years and on trillions of planets at same time? Take some stat courses.
Lmao ... imagine that, billions of years on trillions of planets! Why of course, I should have thought of that!
What are they teaching these kids nowadays?
mdinnerspace написал:
"The probability is so small" to quote the opposing viewpoint. Reality says otherwise. The probability is a big fat 0.00000 to infinity. A roulette ball lands on red. What are the chances it will land on red 1 million times in a row? Proponents will say there is the possibility, given x amounts of spins. This is nonsense. Peoples brains being fooled. Illogical. At some point the math is no longer valid. 1000 times in a row, open debate. Where statistical odds break down I do not know. But the point is 1 million in a row? Yet some will argue it's a possibility.
Given enough gazillions of spins, yes, eventually it would land on red 1 million times in a row. The odds of that might even be better than of a 1300 beating a 2700. But the odds are so small that it's safe to assume it will never happen, even though the probability is not actually zero. Same with this question.
The art of confusion, or better known as "How to have a brain fart".
Told ya.. someone believes the probability is not 0
there is actually a possible way for this happen. Wei Yi beat 2700 when he was nine I believe. Imagine if he was just rated or he had a low rating due to him being rated very low when he was younger, it is possible for someone like him to beat 2700 say even at the age of seven or eight.
That would qualify as abnormal circumstances. It's safe to say that if Wei Yi was beating 2700s at an early age, his rating just hadn't caught up to his improvement yet and he wasn't a real 1300 any more.
Right. The debate makes the assumption an established 1300. All the sidelines of extroidinary circumstances is useless to debate.
TheronG12 wrote:
That would qualify as abnormal circumstances. It's safe to say that if Wei Yi was beating 2700s at an early age, his rating just hadn't caught up to his improvement yet and he wasn't a real 1300 any more.
All this says is 1300 beating 2700, not how strong the 1300 might be. Young kids are often vastly under rated.
I think the chances are far better than most here realize. It is just possible the 2700 player will pay little attention at the start of the game and lose his queen. I know he still would usually win after losing his queen but --at that point--the 1300 rated player has a chance to win above 1 in 1000.
I would guess the odds would be about one in a million that the 1300 rated player would win.
Technically ur correct mcmodern. But what is the point of debating if it were not in fact an established 1300? It is a good question. ..can a very low rated player ever hope to win vs a 2700? Not a question if the 2700 is drunk or the 1300 is in fact 2000. That would be quite pointless to discuss.
ponz111 wrote:
I think the chances are far better than most here realize. It is just possible the 2700 player will pay little attention at the start of the game and lose his queen. I know he still would usually win after losing his queen but --at that point--the 1300 rated player has a chance to win above 1 in 1000.
I would guess the odds would be about one in a million that the 1300 rated player would win.
Odds would be much lower than 1 in a million, but it would be greater than zero.
mdinnerspace wrote:
Technically ur correct mcmodern. But what is the point of debating if it were not in fact an established 1300? It is a good question. ..can a very low rated player ever hope to win vs a 2700? Not a question if the 2700 is drunk or the 1300 is in fact 2000. That would be quite pointless to discuss.
Even in that case, it is possible. Just imagine a player playing random moves, there is always a chance that the random moves are the best moves, just like hitting the lottery. But odds would be very very low, but greater than zero.
Less than 0. Non-existant. Zilch. Nada. Not before hell freezes over. Not before the next big-bang.
You want to believe anything is possible. An Idealistic and romantic view. When you get back to earth give a jingle.
mdinnerspace написал:
Less than 0. Non-existant. Zilch. Nada. Not before hell freezes over. Not before the next big-bang.
Now this is stupid. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that there is a positive probability, even if it is infinitesimally small. Even if it's close enough to zero that it might as well be zero, and it probably is, to say it's less than zero is just absurd.
"The probability is so small" to quote the opposing viewpoint. Reality says otherwise. The probability is a big fat 0.00000 to infinity. A roulette ball lands on red. What are the chances it will land on red 1 million times in a row? Proponents will say there is the possibility, given x amounts of spins. This is nonsense. Peoples brains being fooled. Illogical. At some point the math is no longer valid. 1000 times in a row, open debate. Where statistical odds break down I do not know. But the point is 1 million in a row? Yet some will argue it's a possibility.