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

Estragon
Elubas wrote:

Again pellik, it's just one assumption against another.

I just know, from my experience from playing people much weaker than me (indeed, even people around 1300 once in a while), that you sometimes get into these closed-ish or symmetrical-ish positions where, although you want your opponent to just give you an obvious blunder, the nature of the position forces you to take a more grinding approach. Remember that, of course, as good as a great player is, all they can do is try to provoke a mistake, and exploit it. If the position doesn't give many opportunities like that, it won't necessarily happen like magic.

Also, I totally agree that what you describe is the most common way a GM would make a blunder; however, I would not go the extra step and say that any other circumstances in which a GM would make a blunder are absolutely nonexistent. Sometimes you're trying to attack on the kingside, play Qg4, and forget about that queen on a4 black had that's covering it. It's simply temporary blindness that anyone is capable of.

Games like Stripunsky-Onischuk, or even Petrosian-Bronstein, seemed to be, essentially, unprovoked blindness. In fact, in the Petrosian game, Petrosian had a fantastic position as white, and was grinding his opponent in the usual fashion. However, he simply forgot that the knight was controlling d6 (I think the queen was hung on d6), and in fact, when you look at it, it is sort of tricky in a way -- sometimes your eyes play tricks like that on you, especially if you're in the mindset that your position is "too dominating" for one of your pieces to actually be attacked.

The problem is that 1300 could not recognize or exploit such blunders by 2700s if they happened.  And neither example you site is even a 2700 player at the time.

Elubas

That's the problem? Well, I think he could, if they were simple enough!

Of course, I know that there is often this psychological energy where the weaker player feels like his opponent can't blunder, so when that person does blunder the weaker player gets nowhere near realizing it was a mistake, but I don't think that will apply 100% of the time.

I think it's at least as tough of an assumption that a 1300 won't see that simple blunder purely due to this psychological effect than the assumption that once in a while, this effect might not work.

Elubas

No more infinite monkey discussion? Nobody wants to discuss whether an elephant would win a fight against an ant 100% of the time? Come on guys!

waffllemaster
Elubas wrote:

No more infinite monkey discussion? Nobody wants to discuss whether an elephant would win a fight against an ant 100% of the time? Come on guys!

http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakeinafight.com/

VanillaKnightPOC

Would an elephant sized ant beat an elephant in a fight?

Would an ant sized elephant beat an ant in a fight?

Expertise87

Yes to the first, no to the second.

waffllemaster

Looks like pound for pound the ant wins eh.

Expertise87

Actually an elephant sized ant couldn't exist - it would asphyxiate itself.

VanillaKnightPOC

Elephant sized ants are suicidal, TIL.

AndyClifton
Expertise87 wrote:

Actually an elephant sized ant couldn't exist - it would asphyxiate itself.

It also wouldn't be able to move.

Expertise87

Yes, an inconvenient side effect of being dead.

waffllemaster

Ok then, how about an elephant vs a swarm of ants with total ant mass equal to one elephant mass.

Google calculations give me ~1.5 million ants.

MyCowsCanFly

"Giant ants were the terror of the movie Them! (1954).  Rajesh and Howard realize giant ants would be a cool new method of transportation.  But Sheldon Cooper is right:  unfortunately physics determines that giant ants cannot exist on our planet as we know it."

Spock made a brief appearance in the movie. If giant ants aren't possible, they must have shrunk the people.

solskytz

An elephant is not much the fighting animal... it probably wouldn't recognize the danger in time. 

also, 1.5 million ants are way more flexible than an elephant! There are just so many ways they can split and swarm... how will he block 10,000 of them coming up his nostril? while 20,000 more are busy tickling an armpit, 5000 busy bothering the end of his digestive canal, and 15,000 more crawling up an ear? This could drive anyone crazy!

 

Piece value in chess: 9 for a queen, 10 for a couple rooks, 12 for four minor pieces - in total, 31 pawns. 

Now, how would a setup of King + usual pieces, standing on their first line, fare against an array of King + 31 pawns where the black king stands on e8 and the pawns occupy the whole of the 7th, 6th, 5th and 4th ranks except for, say, d4? 

I remind you that each pawn can make a double jump on its first move!! Monstrous indeed :-)

I'd take that against a 2700 player any day of the week - hey! Material is even and he even gets white :-) he should be happy (true that I'm no 1300, but I promise to patzer him a couple pawns at some point...)

AndyClifton
Expertise87 wrote:

Yes, an inconvenient side effect of being dead.

I meant that their legs would break from the weight. Smile

ncmike2011

only if the 2700 player intentionally loses otherwise odds are the same as a snowball in hell.

AndyClifton

And those odds would be...?

solskytz

Actually this may be playable or even winnable for the one with the pieces...

I think about sacrificing a bunch of pieces on one side (like, the a-b file area), then penetrating with a Queen and a rook (maybe two, if two are left) to just checkmate the king... the pawns are slow and won't do much damage - but it depends how long it takes to actually arrange the pieces for these sacs... an interesting question after all

ClavierCavalier
solskytz wrote:

looks like we have more shared interests than just chess... check out www.youtube.com/user/solskytz.

 

Rhapsody in Blue is always nice.  Better with an orchestra, of course.  One of those few "concertos" that gets played solo.

ClavierCavalier

I think one of the real problems with this is that a GM can see much further than a 1300, which is why they make better positional moves.  The 1300 could even make a move that looks perfect but the GM can quickly see a 13 turn tactic that destroys them.

I think the easiest answer is to say that the 1300 has a chance to beat the GM but its implausible.  Sure, the GM could die a few turns into it, or the 1300 could be Bobby Fischer who never played a rated game since getting to 1300.  Maybe the 1300 is a hustler who purposely keeps their rating low.  Maybe the GM is the hustler who purposely loses the first game and then bets a huge sum of money on the second?  Oh, maybe the 1300 is a super intelligent alien chess genius and it's their first chess game?