x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

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

  • #5501

    Well a 1400 online is not a 1300 and had probably sandbagged at that. Nice vid though golum. 

  • #5502

    its easy to start making automatic, unthinking moves once an overwhelming advantage is secured. then theres that Checkmate!

  • #5503

    hou yifan will where that special perfume she knows i like and then i just cant concentrate...

  • #5504
    chessking1976 wrote:

    Well a 1400 online is not a 1300 and had probably sandbagged at that. Nice vid though golum. 

    I have been at ca 1400 blitz chess.com and Fide 1388 at the same time. Now I am at 1328 chess.com blitz and 1388 Fide long chess. I feel that 1388 Fide is a bit sandbaggish, but it was not deliberately sandbagging . In my last tournament I blundered terribly many times, because my daughter gave me a grandson and that kicked me mentally far out. If something like that happens to a GM , the birth of a child, it can change his mental state to another level, loosing contact with the chessboard.

     

    This 1400 beats GM Dlugy game was blitz and it was a trap, and also a brilliant finish. Both 1400s and 1300s can learn traps (brilliant finish in blitz from a 1300 is not to be expected, but it happens from time to time). This one was very good because it isn't well known. I can play a trap too, but it will not work on masters, because it is too well known.

  • #5505

    @DjonniDerevnja not to mention Max Dlugy is 2500 fide and not 2700

  • #5506

    wisk u knew

     

  • #5507

    Chess Players Lie at Least as Often as Poker Players

    And are Far More Ignorant Than People Realize

     

               As the Winnie-the-Pooh sight-gag you'll find immediately below indicates:  the graphics on my earlier try made my comment hard to digest, so here I am trying again . . . all the comments from my original (p. 6) contribution are germane to the possibility of a 1300 rated player or lower defeating a GM rated 2700 or above.

              I originally commented back on page six (and made a few quick follow-ups on page 6 and 7) of this ridiculously long and popular, but highly provocative 276-page forum item  -- all those earlier statements I made are still 100% accurate.  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 p. 6 and 7 follow-up comments, I showed that players insist that they're experts on the chess rule-book and on chess history, but they obviously 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:

           Main idea:  chess rules being standardized all over the globe is a totally modern idea, the USCF, for example, did NOT really begin to "cow-tow" entirely to FIDE until about the late 1960's.  Here's some back-up to that statement:  1.  The Queen did NOT exist until roughly 1440.  2.  Free-rocade castling (especially shocking after 0-0-0) during the 1700's and early 1800's allowed the castling-rook to move to any empty square up to  and including e1 -- thus the now extinct Boden-Kiesiertzky Gambit was all but invincible back then.  3.  White always moving first to start the game was not standard until after around 1835 or whenever the McDonnell-Labourdanais (?? -- spelling) championship match occurred.  4.  Virtually only in America and Britain, eliminating chess notation in old-fashioned descriptive wasn't a required tournament score-keeping change favoring the now popular universal (or algebraic) notation until about a year after Fischer beat Spassky (1973).   5.  As mentioned in my page 6, comment . . . early in the 20th Century, illegal moves were penalized by a forced legal move of the "cheater's" King, if possible.  Intent was not important -- in fact, a not too UNcommon ploy back then where a shocking King move was the necessary prelude to starting a shocking tactical-brilliancy was to deliberately make an illegal move, then argue vociferously about your sleeve hitting a piece (or etc.) accidentally in order to thus lull your opponent into a state of low-alertness.  6.  The intent rule on illegal moves requiring a decision by the TD who probably did NOT see the event occur was, in my opinion, a bad rule change.  Virtually only at the very highest levels does chess have on-site referees monitoring each board.

          When it comes to lying, I'd say this particular Forum shows a very strong chess-player proclivity to create ridiculous statistics out of blue sky 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.  Belief in a valid "law of averages" is the greatest things that ever happened to casino-owners and -stockholders and horse-racing emporiums.  To be a truly intelligent 21st Century denizen, you must recognize that Probability is a mathematical science and the only existing law appropriate to statistical claims is THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS . . . anything and virtually everything that is actually possible will eventually happen. While it's true that the rarest of cases, the apparent impossibilities, virtually never do occur . . . we must realize that virtually never is a far cry from actual impossibility.

     

    Have a nice day!

    Bob

  • #5508
    A1Rajjpuut wrote:

    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

    null

Top

Online Now