FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Have you ever thought I was joking?
Well, I may not think much of the initial "offer" but at least the OP has created a lively thread :)
Someone pointed out that the 1300 makes bad moves because he thinks they are good moves. That's worth remembering.
Some people say that they also make moves based on not fully understanding the board and often don't take the time to try.
A 2700 is a super GM generally, therefore a more appropriate comparison would be, for example, a race where Usain Bolt is pitted against a 10 year old child, not yet ready to maximize their own potential in such an event, let alone being able to compete against such an overwhelming opponent.
David vs Goliath. Heard of that story? It can happen but the 1300 player have to have a very good coach who prepared quiet an interesting line so that the 2700 player would assume his opponent is making random moves so much so that he plays passive or careless and would subsequently fall into a trap.
@topman, that might account for the 1300 taking out an 1800, or at a push a 2000. But not a 2700.
The whole David vs Goliath thing is ridiculous. A slingwith a rock could kill anyone, regardless of how big he is. A 2700 won't fall to a shot by a 1300, though. Maybe by a 2400.
Gambit Openings when played in bullet settings will give a 2700 problems specially if it is well prepared. With time pressure the 2700 will eventually blunder and might lose via time forfeit.
It's really funny how so many people are rooting for 1300. It's natural, since this site is populated more by those leaning towards 1300s in their rating than 2700s.
i guess he could become disconnected and loose because of a poor internet connection! lol an example serino could look like this, they are playing in a 3rd world country, playing for fun and no reliable power and internet connection, suddenly a mortor goes off next door taking out the power pole...
"probability is relative"err, what?
speaking of probable relatives...what was Bobby Fischer's rating when he beat Donald Byrne. He was thirteen.
His ratings went meteoric for the next few years. At 1760 he beat Samual Reshevsky (over 2600)...
So, that a 1300 player could play AND WIN against a 2700 player?
Yeah. It happens. Has happened. Will again happen.
Hey...sharpen up your playing, folks. The next Bobby Fischer may just come calling any minute now.
This topic is preposterous to begin with, since probability is relative. You can do an event with a .0000000001 chance of succeeding, and never have it happen for all of time, since probability is not cumulative, and therefore will reset after every attempt back to
. In fact, theoretically it is approximately as probable as an event with that .0000000001 probability to happen as it is for an event with a .9999999999 probability to not happen, so to speak.
Also, 1400 points is an insurmountable gap in mental understanding and fortitude which cannot be bridged by a mere 1300, let alone that 1400 points is more than double the 1300 player's own rating. The player would not possess the same level of tactical, positional, opening, and combinational knowledge which a 2700 would utilize, thus not only starting the game inferior due to a lack of opening comprehension, but further digging themselves deeper into a hole the longer they play. A 2700 is a super GM generally, therefore a more appropriate comparison would be, for example, a race where Usain Bolt is pitted against a 10 year old child, not yet ready to maximize their own potential in such an event, let alone being able to compete against such an overwhelming opponent. Likewise, a 1300 player would be incapable of consciously making the moves required to win against a 2700, since they themselves have not developed enough to comprehend and formulate such moves, and if they are then they simply should not be rated 1300. Point: probability is not an accurate measurement for this event, and should be disregarded. Take into account all the facts, details, and contributing factors in the proposed game of chess before you make a decision based solely on probability.
yes, yours was a "vcheap shot" and also a fail. Sorry to mention it, but, don't you imagine that it is an attitude like yours that brought down higher rated players such as Resevsky, Byrne, Byrne, Euwe, and many many more that looked at that determined little face of Bobby Fisher across from them?
Or those who faced Judit Polgar during her transition... "oh, what a cute little girl. Do you know how a Knight moves, honey?" (i would have LOVED to watch those first games)...or Kasparov, Capablanca, any of dozens of "exceptions"...
Not that I'm trying to scare anyone, but, perhaps it isn't as prevalent because some great players never did learn the game in the first place.
But one day might.
Strawman. Nobody is saying the 2700 will underestimate the 1300 and treat the game as frivolous.
And checkmate beats everyone, regardless of the rating...
Yes, but 2700s tend to see checkmate very very well...
And a 1300 isn't at all likely to get into a position where he or she has checkmate against a 2700...
if you are reffering to my comment, sorry. The history is past tense. They were highly rated players and were pounded into the ground like tent stakes. SWEET!
Rare? Granted. But to the topic's heading, entirely possible.
I guess maybe the higher rated players may have used your words as their excuse...but then, they wouldn't have been that highly rated, eh?
I'm sure Fischer was simply under rated. It doesn't mean his opponents under estimated him based on his age. Anyway, nobody else is making a statement that a 2700 will underestimate a 1300, thus it is a strawman.
<Madhacker> right - indeed, 3 0 is my favorite internet playing time. Funny that it's considered 'slow' nowadays.
With chessboards I generally go for 5 0, and 3 0 seems crazy to me - however 3 0 for the internet looks about right, as 5 0 makes me die of boredom when I have to sit there and wait for the other guy to finally MOVE...
So yes, by all means...