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

Elubas 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."

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. 

----

What if we have 10,000 separate 1300 players playing 10,000 separate 2700 (obviously impossible, but it's a hypothetical). I say the 2700's go 10,000-0. Not even a draw.

I went wrong in that tactical sequense. It was very difficult, and I spent 11 minutes on taking on RxBa3. Later I maybe should have moved the knight to a1. I think my Ke2 before the tactic was a tacticallowing mistake . Kd2 would have defended a pawn and not allowed the fork in move 24.

I knew that Hy is good. I played him a year ago and lost.

To beat such small monster I must work more on tactics and on seeing, searching and controlling. I also have to  get the openingbasics rigth.

My main point in this discussion is that somebody thinks the 1300s are bad at chess. Try beating them yourself. They do play very good in many games.

If I play two more open tournaments like this, and fails against those 400 above me, one of my equals, and one of the smallest kids, I will go to the 1300s myself. Then i will become a real 1300, a middleaged 1300.

Absolutely not.

-Warren Buffett

This has already been discussed earlier in this thread. Yes, I think you would see at least one draw or win. 10,000 games with not a single accident? That's quite a claim.

I dont think ELO is about winningpropability. I think its statistics based on history.   To a huge deegree this statistics actually correlates with winningpropabilities, but it doesnt count in the fact that many lowrated  are on the way up, and that many 2700s have more or less peaked already, and are sliding down, or holding steady.

In the big open tournaments I have played, adult 1300s are very few, most of the 1300s and below are small kids. Adults stuck on 1300 maybe retires, or maybe they are parents playing the tournaments their children plays.

Elubas wrote:

chessking1976 wrote:

Elubas 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."

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. 

----

What if we have 10,000 separate 1300 players playing 10,000 separate 2700 (obviously impossible, but it's a hypothetical). I say the 2700's go 10,000-0. Not even a draw.

This has already been discussed earlier in this thread. Yes, I think you would see at least one draw or win. 10,000 games with not a single accident? That's quite a claim.

----

Sure there will be accidents like a knocked over soda or something and maybe even some mistakes or blunders but no losses.

A 1300 definitively can beat a 2000. No doubt about it. (But the 2700 is more untouchable). My coach believes that I can reach 2000 in some years, and when that happens I now for sure that I will lose some games to 1300. Sometimes the brrain is somewhat drifting, and dont really connect. The last game i lost to a 2000 had unrealistic mistakes, like mistakes from another world. I knew the opening, but mixed up the moveorder in move 7. In move nine I blundered my knight making a mistake I knew all about , and trying to save it by counterattacking his queen I lost my own queen (with check ) in move 11. I played on, feeling smart that I was able to figure out that counteratttack, and suddendly in move 15 I realized that I was playing queenless, but my opponent still had his queen.  I had played 4 moves without my queen before I noticed that she was gone. I surrendered in move 15.

That type of error has not much with chess-skills to dto. Its another kind of mistake that can happen regardless of chess-strenght. I think it was to much  focus and tension, mental overload. Very strong players easily loses to 1300s  when their mind is so far off.  Many mistakes in chess is made because the brain hasnt connected ok, and 1300s are good enough to punish bad mistakes even if the opponent is rated 2000.

If you read the game I posted in this tread where Hy Chang Vo did beat me, it is very clear that this below 1300 kid is able continue strong play all the way in after a strong tactic.

Please tell me you were playing bullet. You weren't playing slow chess, blundered away your queen (with check), and then only realized it 4 moves later. That cannot happen, ever. If it truly did, you might want to go have a brain scan done to check for tumors. I'm dead serious. I can't even imagine having that kind of lapse.

I was overignited, and blitzed out the starting moves. It was 90min 30 sec. I was so high on tension that I wasnt in contact with myself.  It was the first game of the really big tournament, where I was planning my breaktrough. Showing what I learned in 3 years of hard training.  I wanted to win insanely much, and the start was in fact insane.

I think this state of mind can happen to several people, and that the brain functioned as if it was contaminated with narcotica or too much whisky.

It became my worst tournament ever. With 5 really bad losses, to ok losses and two fine victories against cute little girls.

I lost a pawn early against this fine player, won tempoinitiative when she grabbed that pawn, isolated her knight and came first and queened a pawn  in the endgame:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208624164659178&set=a.4335977715257.2155920.1161750496&type=3&theater

My victory over Livia Lindstad was strong. The picture was taken the previous day when she played doublechess teamed up with the best player in the world.  

TIME TO BUMP THIS THING, WE DONT WANT THIS GREAT THREAD DYING GUYS!

Indeed. Don't let this thread die.

Is there a chance that a 70kg kickboxer who just started training one year ago can beat a 110kg fighter who has been training for the past 20 years?

wtf , not chances

let's the shill's rule the world

Yes.  If the 1300 player is a Grandmaster who has only played one game on chess.com and still only has a 1300 rating, but is actually over 2600 in strength.   lol

After playing 9,000 games against a GM, that 1300 player might become a 1700 or 1800 player, with all of that experience.  Then, after he has improved his playing strength and has learned all of the GM's opening repertoire, I think he could win one or two games out of the last 1,000.  So actually, his chances do become better on the 10,000'th attempt, not due to the odds getting better, but due to the fact that he will become better than 1300 strength after playing that many games against a GM.  In the case of the lottery, each ticket is equal no matter how many you buy, but here, the player would get better over time.  Quite the paradox.  

Of course I know that, which is why I'm controlling for that, done many times in this thread. So for example instead of imagining 10,000 games in a row between two players, we could imagine 10,000 2700s playing 10,000 1300s. I'd count on an upset somewhere with at least one of those games. That's a reasonably conservative estimate, given that the rating system suggests something like a 3 in 10000 chance for the 1300 to get a point. And yeah you can say that the formula breaks down for large rating differences, but in practice it breaks down in favor of the weaker player. With huge differences the stronger player often overestimates his chances and tends to score worse than the formula would suggest.

Ask Vishy Anand directly if he thinks a 1300 can beat a 2700 during his live lesson in the Prodigy Program this November.

https://www.chess.com/blog/GeniusKJ/massive-discount-for-november-prodigy-program-with-vishy-anand

Well, if there were ten thousand 2700-rated players in the world, most of them would probably be Russians.  We all know how they like their vodka, so maybe they would see no harm in getting drunk before playing a lowly 1300 player.  So, they might make a few drunken, careless moves and blunder a piece.  lol   So, maybe the odds are even better than 10,000:3.   I'm trying to think outside of the box, here.  

Can a 1300 beat a 2700?  Yes, of course.  Anything is possible.  Will he?  No.   lol