x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - in Win Phone Store

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

• #5501

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

Part 2

• #5502

hi im new here can someone be my friend

• #5503

Lee Hamilton's wife died in a freak accident? It's a dangerous world out there anymore. former congressman former politics. We have got to do better folks!

• #5504

yep i guss play game  it abut it side to me

• #5505

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

• #5506

A real game (game that has not been tainted by bribes or cheating), about 1% chance for 1300.

• #5507

Nah... more like 0.4823%

• #5508
TremaniSunChild wrote:

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.

• #5509
Molotok89 wrote:
TremaniSunChild wrote:

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.

• #5510
DjonniDerevnja wrote:

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.

• #5511

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.

• #5512
JayeshSinhaChess wrote:

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

• #5513
JayeshSinhaChess wrote:

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.

• #5514

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!

• #5515

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.

Top
or

Online Now