I really don't see much point in arguing over "impossible". I take this position just to be a hard head, I suppose, to the many posts that think a realistic chanch can be expecteded. I shout impossible! And it sure gets the blood flowing! Anyway, the topic was quite dead before I began :)
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
You have to admit, the thread moved on to theoretical territory (not the chess type!) with statistics, infinities, multiverses, absurdities, close encounters, comparisons etc., etc. Not to mention all the formulas! Some educational, some way out in the ozone !
The misunderstandings continue.
"It is a mistake, a huge one, to make the assumption that given more chanches, the odds turn in your favor for the lower rated to win."
Don't tell me you're getting my position mixed up with the gambler's fallacy! If I say that there is a decent shot of a 1300 winning once out of 10,000, I'm not saying that his chances are really low the first 9,999 games and then his odds are really high on the 10,000th. I'm saying that the chance of a 1300 to win on at least one of those games, which could be the first game, the 800th game or the 6500th game, is not so bad.
mdinnerspace wrote:
It is a mistake, a huge one, to make the assumption that given more chanches, the odds turn in your favor for the lower rated to win.
When playing strong players, the weaker will somewhat adapt.
If a very talented 7 year old 1300 with filthy rich ambitious parents plays almost GMs only for at least 1000 games, with a few lower rated beatable players inbetween, he or she actually can achieve GM strenght at the age of 15 but due to the huge amount of losses still have 1300 rating. The lower rated players, maybe in one of ten, twenty or thirty games are needed to lift the rating up to 1300 again after lots of GM losses, and also to get some attackrehearsing.
A 1300 with GM strenght can beat a 2700.
To run a plan like this much money is needed, because GMs has to be paid and a huge number very special invitational tournaments must be arranged .
If a multibillionaire with sense of humour is reading this, he can pull this joke. With enough money to run the project he can hire some GMs, and also pay Hy Chang Vo and his father to pull this stunt. Hy is only 1277 now, but is young and talented enough to become Gm in maybe ten years if the motivation and funding is sufficient.
Shakes head in disbelief. The arguement is can a 1300 player.... not the most highly convoluted hypothetical scenario where a player somehow maintains a 1300 rating but in fact plays like a GM.
What is that about? ???????
1300 means the skill set of a 1300 and nobody else. To invent scenarios is just plain a waste of time
Spamspamspam, join! :)
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/free-20-player-online-quotmk-simulquot?page=1
An old, established player rated 2356 won yesterday against a young 2701 at the Isle of Man tournament.
Now there is a Huge upset !
mdinnerspace wrote:
Shakes head in disbelief. The arguement is can a 1300 player.... not the most highly convoluted hypothetical scenario where a player somehow maintains a 1300 rating but in fact plays like a GM.
What is that about? ???????
1300 means the skill set of a 1300 and nobody else. To invent scenarios is just plain a waste of time
Wasting time is recreation 
Somebody...please kill this thread...please
The only way this thread will die. ..is when a 1300 wins a 2700. Then we throw up our arms in resignation. Meet at the tavern and burn our chess sets in effigy.
mdinnerspace wrote:
The only way this thread will die. ..is when a 1300 wins a 2700. Then we throw up our arms in resignation. Meet at the tavern and burn our chess sets in effigy.
lol 
Why let this thread die? What an interesting discussion!
I defeated, not a 2700, but a 9 year old 1085 girl yesterday. I think the gameplan was great, and that a 1300 can use this plan to try defeating the 2700.
The plan: Slow build up of smooth development, castle early, not give away any chances, all pieces sound and covered, win the centre, attack central with knight on D5, pull a tactic to win the exchange, and finally a careful slow plan to land on the 7th rank with double rooks.
There is of course a problem. The 2700 has won more games, and is more skilled than the 1085, but dont let us hang up in details.
Of course you come up with the perfect plan, because 1100 players just let you do them! The trick is to achieve such great set-ups against more precise play. It can take work to do such a thing when a good opponent is constantly trying to sabotage it.
Yep. Absolutely. If he uses Houdini pro.1.5a. He can win all the matches against a 2700 player... Somebody plz close this fucked up forum....
Feel free to describe your personal issues. Rest assured though, nobody gives a damn.
If you're trying to get it closed by being abusive, I expect a mod will mute you instead.
Elubas wrote:
Of course you come up with the perfect plan, because 1100 players just let you do them! The trick is to achieve such great set-ups against more precise play. It can take work to do such a thing when a good opponent is constantly trying to sabotage it.
I totally agree. The 1100s doesnt sabotage the perfects plan much, and the GM destroys the perfect plans.
Anyway, a perfect plan is a good plan :)
I am in a 78 board tournament know, hoping to feel the strenght of the masters. There are 29 masters participating. But there is a problem, the masters are playing on the top 20 bords, and I was playing at board 60. If I only had outplayed the almost 2000 player I met in the first round, I could have got a GM in the second, but resigning in move 15 wasnt good enough.
It is a mistake, a huge one, to make the assumption that given more chanches, the odds turn in your favor for the lower rated to win. Statistical properties can be applied to a roulette wheel, but not to winning a chess game vs a much higher rated opponent.
This has been my arguement. A mathamatical formula DOES NOT represent true chanches. You can play all the games you want, the more games does Not increase the chanches of the lower rated winning. He will lose everytime, no matter the amount of games. And please.... not this bs about more games, maybe a heart attack etc. Don't be absurd. Be real
Your proposition is it's impossible. Not that it's very very unlikely, but that it's completely impossible.
But you give no argument. Only that you feel like it shouldn't happen the way you feel like elephants shouldn't fly (it's about your feelings because chess and elephants are unrelated).
You are correct, there is no mathematical formula... because all you need to do to find the odds are to count the possible outcomes. You said earlier in this topic (#4959) that it's a mistake to assume the possible outcomes are possible... and I think that pretty much speaks for itself