The point is, there exists a probability of simply outplaying a 2700 by sheer luck alone. Quite clearly that probability is miniscule, but it is non-zero.

Galileo182

I have discussed this point at length already. The element of skill involved in chess only serves to increase the likelihood that a 1300 will beat the 2700, as compared to a random move generator (which will also eventually win).

Also, I wish I could remember the quote - but I remember a GM stating how few people realise how much luck is involved in chess.

The point is, there exists a probability of simply outplaying a 2700 by sheer luck alone. Quite clearly that probability is miniscule, but it is non-zero.

Galileo182

I have discussed this point at length already. The element of skill involved in chess only serves to increase the likelihood that a 1300 will beat the 2700, as compared to a random move generator (which will also eventually win).

Also, I wish I could remember the quote - but I remember a GM stating how few people realise how much luck is involved in chess.

No, not really, the skill differential is far larger than the luck differential

TMB...I think we can all agree with the notion your are presenting, you just need to stop calling it probability. It is logically permissible, but I don't think there is any objective way probability can be used to assign a value 0-1 to any single game between a super GM and a 1300 player.

As for the quote about luck, I don't think it would prove anything anyway. I would be willing to bet the GM is not talking about over the board play, but rather the circumstances surrounding a game. The objective quality of a move's accuracy is almost certainly not that to which the GM is ascribing the importance of luck or chance. I wish I were a GM so I could say this with absolute certainty, but lacking any title as I do, I am still confident GMs do not make moves without a reason. Reason is the opposite of chance in this context.

"No, not really, the skill differential is far larger than the luck differential"

Ahh, ok.

galileo,

Thanks, and I understand your point as well. That is why I thought it was clearer to put the GM against a random move generater, and therefore people could see that despite all the intricacies and skill in chess, there exists a chance of blindly knocking out the perfect game. There will also exist a fairly definite probability of this happening, not perfectly definite, because it depends on:

a) the length of the game b) the number of available moves in each position and c) the number of moves of a high enough calibre in each position.

As I have said before, I am no expert in this area - I cannot even recall the equation to calculate it. But it would be of a similar form to that of calculating the probability of tossing 10 heads in a row. The differences being:

a) we don't know how many heads are needed, b) we don't know how many faces the coin has, and c) we don't know how many heads there are.

Adding the 1300 into the mix complicates things, and it is arguable as to whether he will achieve the feat before the generator.

I'm inclined to think chess is more deterministic than probabilistic. It's true that the outcome of all positions is beyond mankind's ken as of yet, but that does not make the game probabilistic (there is no throw of the dice). In such a case, you cannot simply go about applying the rules of probability, at least not when the game is played by strong players whose moves are not slaves of random chance.

Edit: I understand what you are saying, but in your case where a random move generator playes a successive strings of perfect moves from start to end is not really a 1300 player. Sorry, does not apply to the thread.

Beck15: Although there are disadvantages to being a 1300 compared to a generator, keep in mind that there are advantages as well. For example, a 1300 is more likely to take advantage of a missed mate in 1. So it's not so simple.

Elubas, talking during the game is discouraged according to USCF regulation 20G Annoying behavior prohibited and 20I The director has the option of banning all talking in the tournament room, among others.

Yes, and even genuine 1300 players don't always play moves a 1300 would normally play. I'm saying that under any kind of normal circumstances where a 1300 might encounter a 2700 in a chess game when both are in reasonable chess shape and play a game at their respective levels of play, the 2700 will win every single time.

Alright, new direction in this thought experiment. Since people seem to bring in chances, and human conditions, and what not, into the problem, let us replace the organic players with silicon ones. Lets make the problem purely of elo strength. Lets say, pitch 'Belle (2250)' against 'Houdini (3250)'.

Now, who here thinks Belle has a chance to win a game against Houdini in a long string of games? Raise their hands. How many games do they need to play for Belle to come up with a win? How about for a draw?

@tmb, sorry I did not see your phrasing of the question, I was just addressing the question as asked by the OP.

You are right that even with your question the answer is yes... but as I explained earlier, only in the same sense that the Red Lion Pub FC consisting of overweight middle-aged men technically has a chance of beating Barca or Man Utd. I.e. in real life it isn't going to happen.

Beck15

The point is, there exists a probability of simply outplaying a 2700 by sheer luck alone. Quite clearly that probability is miniscule, but it is non-zero.

Galileo182

I have discussed this point at length already. The element of skill involved in chess only serves to increase the likelihood that a 1300 will beat the 2700, as compared to a random move generator (which will also eventually win).

Also, I wish I could remember the quote - but I remember a GM stating how few people realise how much luck is involved in chess.

Beck15

The point is, there exists a probability of simply outplaying a 2700 by sheer luck alone. Quite clearly that probability is miniscule, but it is non-zero.

Galileo182

I have discussed this point at length already. The element of skill involved in chess only serves to increase the likelihood that a 1300 will beat the 2700, as compared to a random move generator (which will also eventually win).

Also, I wish I could remember the quote - but I remember a GM stating how few people realise how much luck is involved in chess.

No, not really, the skill differential is far larger than the luck differential

TMB...I think we can all agree with the notion your are presenting, you just need to stop calling it probability. It is logically permissible, but I don't think there is any objective way probability can be used to assign a value 0-1 to any single game between a super GM and a 1300 player.

As for the quote about luck, I don't think it would prove anything anyway. I would be willing to bet the GM is not talking about over the board play, but rather the circumstances surrounding a game. The objective quality of a move's accuracy is almost certainly not that to which the GM is ascribing the importance of luck or chance. I wish I were a GM so I could say this with absolute certainty, but lacking any title as I do, I am still confident GMs do not make moves without a reason. Reason is the opposite of chance in this context.

"No, not really, the skill differential is far larger than the luck differential"

Ahh, ok.

galileo,

Thanks, and I understand your point as well. That is why I thought it was clearer to put the GM against a random move generater, and therefore people could see that despite all the intricacies and skill in chess, there exists a chance of blindly knocking out the perfect game. There will also exist a fairly definite probability of this happening, not perfectly definite, because it depends on:

a) the length of the game

b) the number of available moves in each position and

c) the number of moves of a high enough calibre in each position.

As I have said before, I am no expert in this area - I cannot even recall the equation to calculate it. But it would be of a similar form to that of calculating the probability of tossing 10 heads in a row. The differences being:

a) we don't know how many heads are needed,

b) we don't know how many faces the coin has, and

c) we don't know how many heads there are.

Adding the 1300 into the mix complicates things, and it is arguable as to whether he will achieve the feat before the generator.

I'm inclined to think chess is more deterministic than probabilistic. It's true that the outcome of all positions is beyond mankind's ken as of yet, but that does not make the game probabilistic (there is no throw of the dice). In such a case, you cannot simply go about applying the rules of probability, at least not when the game is played by strong players whose moves are not slaves of random chance.

Edit: I understand what you are saying, but in your case where a random move generator playes a successive strings of perfect moves from start to end is not really a 1300 player. Sorry, does not apply to the thread.

...

Beck15: Although there are disadvantages to being a 1300 compared to a generator, keep in mind that there are

advantagesas well. For example, a 1300 is more likely to take advantage of a missed mate in 1. So it's not so simple.Right, an elephant steps on an ant enough times, and eventually the ant will win. Got it now :)

Actually elephants are scared of ants.

So basically, all the 1300 would have to do is make the 2700 scared of him. Hmm...

"Resign right now, or your family shall die."?

I'm pretty sure that is against the USCF/FIDE rules...

(Dang it. :( )

"Resign right now, or your family shall die."?

Hey don't be weird. It's more like "Resign now, or the puppy gets it!"

I think USCF regards stating a fact as legal. We all shall die eventually.

Elubas, talking during the game is discouraged according to USCF regulation 20G Annoying behavior prohibited and 20I The director has the option of banning all talking in the tournament room, among others.

True, although you could probably squeeze those words in without anything more than a warning being enforced.

I'm sick of this d thread! Good buy!

I think we can all agree that a 1300 cannot beat a 2700 if the 1300 is playing like a 1300 and the 2700 is playing like a 2700.

"I think we can all

agreethat a 1300 cannot beat a 2700 if the 1300 is playing like a 1300 and the 2700 is playing like a 2700."After reading this thread, I'm not sure why you would think that.

In any case, define "playing like a 2700." Even genuine 2700 players don't always play moves that a 2700 would normally play.

Yes, and even genuine 1300 players don't always play moves a 1300 would normally play. I'm saying that under any kind of normal circumstances where a 1300 might encounter a 2700 in a chess game when both are in reasonable chess shape and play a game at their respective levels of play, the 2700 will win every single time.

Alright, new direction in this thought experiment. Since people seem to bring in chances, and human conditions, and what not, into the problem, let us replace the organic players with silicon ones. Lets make the problem purely of elo strength. Lets say, pitch 'Belle (2250)' against 'Houdini (3250)'.

Now, who here thinks Belle has a chance to win a game against Houdini in a long string of games? Raise their hands. How many games do they need to play for Belle to come up with a win? How about for a draw?

I expect Belle to win about 1 in 100 games and draw 3-5 in 100 games at long time controls.

There is always a chance however unlikely!

@tmb, sorry I did not see your phrasing of the question, I was just addressing the question as asked by the OP.

You are right that even with your question the answer is yes... but as I explained earlier, only in the same sense that the Red Lion Pub FC consisting of overweight middle-aged men technically has a chance of beating Barca or Man Utd. I.e. in real life it isn't going to happen.