Never
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
Merlino1972 wrote:
It is just as easy as winning a world cup soccer, tennis, americain football or any other sport without one single training.
So good luck!
Not exactly. The 1300s are reasonably fit amateurs, and have put down a lot of training. 1300 Fide is not bad, maybe a strenght close to 1650 online.
To Chessnutcafe: Was this Naka-loss a rated longchessgame? Do anybody know who , when and where? Do anybody have the gamenotations?
Naka lost in bullet to a 2300 by disconnection.
Close enough to qualify as its possible.
Such comparisons of ratings can not be made- internet vs fide. Some players fide rating may actually be higher than their online rating. It's dependent on the skill set.
i remember Naka played the early Qh5 line... and his much lower rated opponent beat him. i don't remember where or when... just remember the video analysis and watching. I'm sure it's in the chess.com archives or even on y/t
anyone else remember the specifics?
RetiFan wrote:
...
Elubas yazmış:
Ace in Tennis? Allowing a knockout punch in Box? Wrongfully breaking an initial four-of-a-kind in your hand by replacing some cards in Poker?There is no equivalent to a mate in 1 blunder in any serious sport that I can think of.
...
Well an ace in tennis loses you just one point (if the guy aces you). So your attentiveness, even total, 100% inattentiveness, towards the other guy's serve, loses you just a single point. Whereas in chess, it might be a mate in 1 you didn't pay attention to, and you lose the game. So there's a huge difference there, and that's what I'm getting at. I don't know much about boxing, though I'd say, a weakling wouldn't be able to deliver a knockout punch anyway even if given a perfect opportunity, whereas a chess beginner might be able to execute a mate in 1 on a GM if allowed.
Sep 11, 2016
0
#4828
Elubas wrote:
RetiFan wrote:
...
Elubas yazmış:
Ace in Tennis? Allowing a knockout punch in Box? Wrongfully breaking an initial four-of-a-kind in your hand by replacing some cards in Poker?There is no equivalent to a mate in 1 blunder in any serious sport that I can think of.
...
Well an ace in tennis loses you just one point (if the guy aces you). So your attentiveness, even total, 100% inattentiveness, towards the other guy's serve, loses you just a single point. Whereas in chess, it might be a mate in 1 you didn't pay attention to, and you lose the game. So there's a huge difference there, and that's what I'm getting at. I don't know much about boxing, though I'd say, a weakling wouldn't be able to deliver a knockout punch anyway even if given a perfect opportunity, whereas a chess beginner might be able to execute a mate in 1 on a GM if allowed.
An emaciated terminally ill person couldn't give a knockout punch, but any fit person who hit correctly could knockout / critically damage a pro boxer if the boxer let them have a shot at the chin.
mdinnerspace wrote:
Such comparisons of ratings can not be made- internet vs fide. Some players fide rating may actually be higher than their online rating. It's dependent on the skill set.
Yes, I met 2000+ Fide that was 1750 online, but they doesnt give it all, and typically plays faster than longchess.
But a 1300 Fide that playes onlinegames with good effort, he or she probably might have onlinerating at ca 1650. I am 1461 Fide and 1791 online.
Dont focus too much on these numbers, what I really mean, at what I try to say, is that the Fide 1300s are far better than a lot of people think. To get 1300 Fide you have to have played at least 10 games in rated tournaments over the board, and some om them victorious. To get a victory against any active otb-tournamentplayer is difficult.
In Høstturneringen (Nordstrand sjakklubb) thursday the biggest upset was Amelia Nordquelle (1085) beating Lars Kveli (1728). Lars learnt the hard way that 1085 might be very dangerous. Amelia is registered with 94 games and have lost, lost , lost and started winning.
Even a really bad 1300 has a chance of beating a 2700.
Sep 12, 2016
0
#4832
What's the difference between a really bad 1300 and a really good 1300 
Sep 12, 2016
0
#4833
How many players would the 2700 level guy have to play in a row? If he has to play over, like 100 guys, then yeah it's possible.
0110001101101000 wrote:
What's the difference between a really bad 1300 and a really good 1300
The really bad 1300 doesnt rehearse at home, plays few games, and is losing strenght. The really good 1300 is training a lot, learning a lot and is gaining a lot strenght. Amelia isnt 1300 yet (1085), but the day she reaches 1300 (in november?) she might be able to trash a lot of 1800+ players. The bad 1300 will have no chances against the same 1800s.
Amelia actually doesnt count in this discussion, because she is not a 1300, and she is a prodigy. But she is good! :) Very good!
The really good 1300 probably is superintelligent, and the bad 1300 more probably has intelligence slightly above average.
The bad 1300 is much more experienced than the really good 1300 who isnt anywhere near peaking yet.
Sep 12, 2016
0
#4835
Take a look at the match Spassky - Petrosian 1966, since we are talking here of psychopaths obviously
Silly question. The only suprising thing is that this discussion is still painfully dragging on 250 pages later...
Gamer710 yazmış:
How many players would the 2700 level guy have to play in a row? If he has to play over, like 100 guys, then yeah it's possible.
In a simultaneous exhibition, the probability of winning increases not just by simple repeating of the same small probability p. There is also the factor of fatigue, the 2700 must put a lot of effort if he wants to win/draw all 100 games simultaneously.
Sep 12, 2016
0
#4838
What is the probability that he will win both in a tournament game and in the simul by playing the same first move as black?
0110001101101000 wrote:
What's the difference between a really bad 1300 and a really good 1300
By golly I got it!
A. When you win = really good 1300
When you lose = really bad 1300
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
What's the difference between a really bad 1300 and a really good 1300
The really bad 1300 doesnt rehearse at home, plays few games, and is losing strenght. The really good 1300 is training a lot, learning a lot and is gaining a lot strenght. Amelia isnt 1300 yet (1085), but the day she reaches 1300 (in november?) she might be able to trash a lot of 1800+ players. The bad 1300 will have no chances against the same 1800s.
Amelia actually doesnt count in this discussion, because she is not a 1300, and she is a prodigy. But she is good! :) Very good!
The really good 1300 probably is superintelligent, and the bad 1300 more probably has intelligence slightly above average.
The bad 1300 is much more experienced than the really good 1300 who isnt anywhere near peaking yet.
Honestly, I have never heard nor seen a more convoluted, 100% "made up" load of nonsense ever posted about a rating.
There is not a shred of truth, an ounce of evidence in anything said. It obviously is wild speculation by an ill informed imagination.
It is just as easy as winning a world cup soccer, tennis, americain football or any other sport without one single training.
So good luck!