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

But if I truly didn't care, I'd just slam the queen on g4, then probably right after see I hung a queen. But probably no serious chess players would risk embarrassing themselves like that.

If he is bound to make a living of it he cares more. We don't. It's not that you can compare the two, but someone does.

Yeah, I see what you mean, I never really thought of it that way, about how will power plays a role. Sometimes we play worse without meaning to, but afterwards sometime I reflect on it and see that I wasn't trying as hard as I normally would... for example something as simple as considering two candidates every time. If I'm lazy I'll convince myself of the good points of the first reasonable looking move I see, and then just play that move.

why don't you 2 open a thread when you can talk to each other in peace, there's no need for anyone to ruin your thoughts

1 on 1 with Elubas huh?

I'd want it to be like this though: a board, clock, a few beers... sounds like a fun night. Maybe I should start asking some local players.

what is a Elubas ?

Yeah, I get the feeling that playing you would be an interesting experience for some reason :)

In real life 1300 players rarely get to play 2700s. They move in different chess circles.  Just as I never get to swim agains Michael Phelps, race my bike against Bradley Wiggins or take on Mo Farrar in the 10,000 metres.  Could I beat them? Well Phelps might drown, Wiggins might crash, and Farrar might be tripped and stay down!

1300s do get to compete against players with less exalted ratings than 2700.  We have tournament records to check how well they do. They score a small number of wins against 1600, 1700, 1800 rated players ... almost always due to bludners by the higher rated player. By the time you get to games against people with 2100-2200 ratings  the 1300 player has little more chance of winning than against the 2700.

Obviously the "correct" answer is that a 1300 player could score the full point against a 2700 player ... but not if they are both playing at their true strength ... only in some weird (unrealistic?) circumstances.  Is it going to happen in real life?  No!  There are levels of likeliness so low that we might as well treat them as 0.

Do you know how weak even the play of a national master (ELo 2200 approximately) seems to someone of world class?  Does anyone here have any idea of how strong a 2700 player is? 

I do. Many  years ago, when I was at my best (BCF 190+ then equivalent to Elo 2120+ ) I played a series of training games against a very strong player (the games were for his benefit) in which he took 5 minutes to my 30 and he played blindfold whereas I had sight of the board.  I felt like a schoolboy champion might feel running against Usain Bolt. I was brutally crushed in game after game.

So, can someone tell me, what is the POINT of this question. 

You've hit the nail squarely on the head Modest. A few like to argue "anything is possible" by using mathematical equations as proofs to validate their belief. The topic centers around more of a philosophical debate for myself. Of course a 1300 would never win, there is no point in the question but to ask "is the impossible, possible"?

I know that, but dispute that it qualifies as 2700+ in terms of this thread.

That rating was USCF Correspondence Chess. My USCF CC rating of 1805 dates from the late 1990s when my USCF OTB was in the low 1400s, which translates to about 1350 FIDE. In terms of a FIDE rating of 2700, Bloodgood's rating may have been near 2200.

To my knowledge a 1300 has never played a 2700 in a rated, standard, OTB game.

You are right 1300s rarely meet the 2700, and it wont happen in Oslo Chess Festival either, because the highest rated so far is only 2664.

Anyway, I am thrilled by the thought of big upsets. I will play this tournament, and I will follow some very interesting players there too. There will be 40 DGT-boards, hopefully live on the internet. You might see Prodigies play fantastic, and GMs play fantastic.

http://tournamentservice.com/enrolled.aspx?TID=OsloChessFestival-Masters2016-NordstrandSjakklubb_2

Whats the point with this debate? Mostly pure relaxation and entertainment. Smalltalk around the theme"big upsets" . There are also the fairytaledream of the little boy defeating the terrible monster.

The unrated Elham Abdrlauf might play that little boy role. And there are other kids and teenagers too, that I know is difficult for GMs, boys rated between 1800 and 2300 that I hope can win against a GM. There are already 13 GMs listed in the tournament, so there will be chances.

If elo 1300 can beat PlayMagnus level 2000+,it means 1300 can beat 2700

pavelaras написал:

well done

?!

I have seen a C class player beat a IM once. >1 liter vodka involved.

An 800 player beat a 2000 player in Reno last March.

I would advise you to send the bill to the idiot who started this whole damn thing, you will probably need a lot of money in the near future.

"but not if they are both playing at their true strength"

"True strength" is a surprisingly tricky concept. It seems to be saying, what would you play like, if you always played the same way. But that's just it. You never do play exactly the same way. You (usually) play similarly to how you've played previously, but you do vary. So taking out variance seems to be making the players inhuman almost.

One example of how I could lose to a much lower rated player (we'll make it a 600 player, since I'm over 2000 OTB), is kind of akin to what I was saying around page 236. I might have some initial impulse to play some queen move, that happens to lose the queen, and for whatever reason, I don't check to see if it's hanging, maybe I'm being lazy or overconfident or something. If you don't take a split second to check to see if it's hanging, then you won't notice no matter how strong you are.

Now. Let's say that this happened. I hung my queen to a 600 like that. I mean, I don't think just because of that, that makes me a crazy person. I don't think because of that, I can't continue to play like a 2000 like I always have. It seems to me that I could explain that blunder more mundanely: I know better than to make that blunder, but I made it anyway. That simple. So as unlikely as this would be to happen, I wouldn't think that I would be questioning whether I was a 2000 player or something. I am a 2000 player, but I'm also a human.

I learned fairly recently actually that there is a limit to how many rating points you can lose in an OTB tournament game. Like, if I lost to a 1200, I actually wouldn't lose that many more points than if I lost to a 1500. Either way I'd lose about 30 points (I tested this out with the rating estimator on the USCF website). At first that was strange to me, and it seemed to be giving the higher rated player a lucky break. But I think it's simply because, one game only tells so much. If something completely crazy happens in just one game, it shouldn't override the hundreds of games you've already played. One game is just too much to transform your rating. It's too tiny of a sample.

And I'm pretty sure the same goes for winning. You can only win so many points in one tournament game no matter how big of an upset it is.