you can challenge them to play correspondence where computers are allowed
and then you can beat them
case solved.
you too can improve your mystery solving skills by watching these videos:
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-2PskuG_44
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7dhz0IdlM
hi im new here can someone be my friend
yep i guss play game it abut it side to me
you have a couple options to beet a 2700 player first they have connection problems and they lose or you text them and say if i don't win my family will be killed. or you can use an engine to win. there are many ways but none of them probable
A real game (game that has not been tainted by bribes or cheating), about 1% chance for 1300.
Nah... more like 0.4823%
Nah... more like 0.4823%
That is way too high. Mathematically the probability for a win is 0.0000063% and for a draw 0.0000833% or a 1/15,000,000 winning and 1/1,200,000 drawing chance if you use the normal distribution that is used by FIDE. Logistic distribution gives higher chances, 0.0165623% for a win and 0.0301009% for a draw or 1/6,000 win and 1/3,300 drawing odds. Reality might be somewhere inbetween those two.
Nah... more like 0.4823%
That is way too high. Mathematically the probability for a win is 0.0000063% and for a draw 0.0000833% or a 1/15,000,000 winning and 1/1,200,000 drawing chance if you use the normal distribution that is used by FIDE. Logistic distribution gives higher chances, 0.0165623% for a win and 0.0301009% for a draw or 1/6,000 win and 1/3,300 drawing odds. Reality might be somewhere inbetween those two.
These mathematics doesn't work for 1300s, because they are far too inconsistent. A 1300 can play like a master in one out of 10 games, and the rest will be at very different lower quality. When the 1300 plays like a master you can compare the possibility of a 2200 versus a 2700 and divide it on ten. Many 1300s are very good chess players, but falls apart in those games when they lose openingtheorybattles or blunder. But send the 2700 into the 1300s petline, and he must fight very good too survive (which he usually does). Some days the 2700 is out of their psychical calmness. Maybe just discovered a cheating wife or some circumstances throwing their mind into a bad state.
These mathematics doesn't work for 1300s, because they are far too inconsistent. A 1300 can play like a master in one out of 10 games, and the rest will be at very different lower quality. When the 1300 plays like a master you can compare the possibility of a 2200 versus a 2700 and divide it on ten. Many 1300s are very good chess players, but falls apart in those games when they lose openingtheorybattles or blunder. But send the 2700 into the 1300s petline, and he must fight very good too survive (which he usually does). Some days the 2700 is out of their psychical calmness. Maybe just discovered a cheating wife or some circumstances throwing their mind into a bad state.
I agree that the probabilities are not consistent because low rated players might be some underrated juniors or not have enough games yet. But a 1300 player simply doesn´t have any understanding of any advanced chess concepts. Give him a somewhat complex position and he will easily blunder, which against a 2700 player is suicide. There is of course a possibility to have luck and blindly finding a sequence of good moves, but the chances are very slim and certainly not one out of ten. Plus 2700 players have deeper opening understanding, so what you would consider a pet line for the 1300 player a 2700 will probably already know tens of sidelines for the same opening with all it´s nuances. That being said I think the logistic distribution is closer to reality than the normal one, but still too optimistic. I don´t know if there is a database with game results so that we could see what it looks like in reality.
Simply put if the 2700 player plays to his potential then no. The 1400 player could win if the GM makes a string of blunders that cost him 2 or 3 pieces for a pawn or something.
Keep in mind that most 2700s could just spot a Queen and still win comfortably against a 1400 player.
Simply put if the 2700 player plays to his potential then no. The 1400 player could win if the GM makes a string of blunders that cost him 2 or 3 pieces for a pawn or something.
Keep in mind that most 2700s could just spot a Queen and still win comfortably against a 1400 player.
i don't think so. I played a computer without queen at maximum level-won
Simply put if the 2700 player plays to his potential then no. The 1400 player could win if the GM makes a string of blunders that cost him 2 or 3 pieces for a pawn or something.
Keep in mind that most 2700s could just spot a Queen and still win comfortably against a 1400 player.
I know a couple people who would be willing to take that bet. 2700 rating is probably in the top 50 in the world, but 1400 is average or maybe above average. Even an average player knows how to play the game, and with such a huge advantage, it certainly doesnt become a comfortable win (or win at all) for even the very best.
I beat my computer when it didn't have a queen. There's a difference between losing a queen in the middle game or gaining a queen for a few pawns or a piece, then being up a WHOLE queen from the VERY BEGINNING!
Yeah a whole queen is too much. The estimations according to this site: https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html#rating1=1300&rating2=2700&formula=normal are 8 pawns or rook and minor piece. But that somehow also sounds too much, who knows.
It happened!
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?201710249752
Maxim Dulugy (2709) Lost to a 1300!
i never thought this would happen!
It happened!
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?201710249752
Maxim Dulugy (2709) Lost to a 1300!
i never thought this would happen!
Although it is USCF rating, that's shocking news! The OP is answered, everybody can rest now!
It happened!
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?201710249752
Maxim Dulugy (2709) Lost to a 1300!
i never thought this would happen!
Although it is USCF rating, that's shocking news! The OP is answered, everybody can rest now!
It appears that his fide rating is a little over 2500. 200 points difference between the two rating systems seems like a lot. I'll bet a 1300 beating a 2700 doesn't happen often, but apparently it does happen.
It has actually happened before, let this die.
Chess Players Lie at Least as Often as Poker Players
And are Far More Ignorant Than People Realize
I commented back on page six (and made a few quick follow-ups on page 6 and 7) of this ridiculous, but highly revealing forum item. From the ensuing 269-270 pages of comments it's easy to see that Chess Players Lie at Least as Often as Poker Players and are Far More Ignorant Than People Realize. In my earlier comment, I showed that players insist that they're experts on the chess rule-book and chess history, but absolutely are not, for example: not realizing that chess rules change over time, they insist they know the truth-eternal about chess when they definitely do NOT, for example:
A1* Rules being standard all over the globe is a totally modern idea, the USCF, for example, did NOT "cow-tow" entirely to FIDE until about the late 1960's
1. The Queen did NOT exist until roughly 1440.
2. Free-rocade castling (especially shocking after 0-0-0) of the 1700 and early 1800's allowed the castling-rook to move to any empty square up to and including e1.
3. White always moving first up was not standard until the mid-1800's
4. Eliminating chess notation in old-fashioned descriptive wasn't a required tournament score-keeping change to universal (algebraic) notation until about a year after Fischer beat Spassky (1973).
5. As mentioned on page 6, early in the 20th Century, illegal moves were penalized by a forced legal move of the "cheaters" King, if possible. Intent was not important -- in fact, a not too UNcommon ploy where a shocking King move was the necessary first move to begin a tactical-gem was to
deliberately make an illegal move, then argue vociferously about your sleeve hitting a piece accidentally and thus lull your opponent into low-alertness.
6. The intent rule requiring a decision by the TD who probably did NOT see the event occur was, in my opinion, a bad rule change. Chess does NOT have on- site referees.
When it comes to lying, I'd say this Forum shows a very strong chess-player proclivity to create ridiculous statistics ON THE SPOT. As far as ignorance, the most obvious one is that apparently about 98% of players are firm that something called "The Law of Averages" exists . . . it does NOT. Probability is a mathematical science and the only law appropriate is THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS . . . anything that is possible will eventually happen. The rare cases virtually never do.
Have a nice day!
Bob