He who analyses blitz is stupid. - Rashid Nezhmetdinov
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
-kenpo- wrote:
Elubas wrote:
My answer to this question ties in with the fact that those online players who strategically play others 400 or so points lower than them are not necessarily going to make a profit in points in the long run, because even though they could get 25 wins in a row, all of that will eventually be returned by an "unexpected" loss.
I don't really think anything is impossible -- maybe a grandmaster could pull a stripunsky, and hang his bishop and rook. True, even then, the 1300 might still not win, but if we had eight thousand billion tries, maybe one time it would happen.
You know they say that if a monkey was forced to type for an infinite amount of time, eventually the random strokes it makes will "just happen" to be identical to Shakespeare's Hamlet.
seems like most everyone who plays online chess plays mostly plays well below their rating. most of the average opponent ratings I come across are a full 200-300 points below the person's rating.
perhaps this is because it's a little more difficult to find a game with someone closer to their rating and they don't really want to put in the effort to do so and just play whoever happens to come along.
For me it's simply because I've always played people around my level and my level has been increasing. Probably the same for a lot of people. Although my opponent rating has pretty much caught up now.
There is always a chance....maybe the 2700 player is having a bad hair day or something....who knows!!! Everything is possible!!!!!
Annabella1 wrote:
There is always a chance....maybe the 2700 player is having a bad hair day or something....who knows!!! Everything is possible!!!!!
In your fantasy world perhaps, but not in reality 
the answer to the question about a 1300 beating a gm is of course yes, it could happen.
1300 with only 2 or 3 games but maybe not 1300 after a 1000.
i think racing pundits would draw the distinction between proven form and potential form
No. Impossible.
If we believe in the infinite monkey typing shakespeare, we can also believe in the infinite monkey incidentally playing a perfect game of chess, which would be sufficient to beat a 2700 
(assuming they will play a random move each time) (and assuming a monkey can be trained to play chess, with knowledge of all the rules; chess master 10 tells me it's possible! 
)
Sep 21, 2012
0
#49
Elubas wrote:
assuming a monkey can be trained to play chess
Actually the monkey does not have to be trained, it just has to somehow (coincidentally) make a legal move once in a while.
i think that expertise97 has missed my point ! ratings mean very little unless compared with number of games played...in other words, someone with gm potential joining chess.com would start with a rating of 1200 having played zero games. this is "potentially" better than someone on 1200 after a 100 games. therefore a 1300 player with only 1 or 2 games played is quite possibly better than a 1300 with a 100 games played...if i was a gm taking on a minnow i d feel very confidant against the latter and keep an open mind against the former.
The 1300 rated player could bribe the 2700 rated player to let the lower rated player win in a simul. It would have to be a pretty big bribe...
Sep 22, 2012
0
#52
Theoretically speaking, yes. However, such games don't occur at all. And we need a very large sample for it to happen. Btw, what is the largest rating gap win you can find? I've seen ones with 600+ Elo differences.
That's like racing a tricycle against a Kawasaki crotch rocket. Unless the motorcycle's engine blows up and fails, the bicycle has no chance of peddling home a victory. The Motorcyle (SuperGM) Has just too many levels of depth beyond the Bike (1300 player). But still it's not 100% chance. Anything can happen, for example the SuperGM can have some emergency and forfeit. But based on regular playing conditions, and both sides playing at their level, the 1300 doesn't get lucky 99.8% of the time.
Cool Thought:
Does anyone have any game scores(PGN's) they can post of a 1300 or less beating a 2600+ player? Please post and if you have the story that goes with it you get extra credit!
~AM
This is one of games from year 2010 when I was around 1300. My opponent was 2023. That was a 700 pts gap. However 2700 against 2000 won't be that easy I guess.
28. Rf7+ maybe gets a question mark (or two).
So do people think the 2700 player would win giving the 1300 player odds of a queen?
He or she has lost their opening book as well as the piece.
My feeling is they would win against a 1300 but perhaps not against a 1500.
They would win against me - I'd be too cautious.
To everyone saying "perhaps an inaccurate rated 1300 player"
Well then that player isn't really rated 1300 right? We're ofc speaking of a real 1300, not just numbers on papers.
johnyoudell wrote:
28. Rf7+ maybe gets a question mark (or two).
So do people think the 2700 player would win giving the 1300 player odds of a queen?
He or she has lost their opening book as well as the piece.
My feeling is they would win against a 1300 but perhaps not against a 1500.
They would win against me - I'd be too cautious.
28.Rf7 gets a question mark. Exactly right. Of course I wouldn't have won if he didn't make some blunder. The point is that I was lucky enough that my opponent blundered, I survived long enough to see that happen and I didn't miss my chance when he gave up that rook.
If 2700 is not sleeping as pfren suggested, or drunk, this is the only chance. Lets do some probabilistic calculation.
Let's say there is 10% chance for each move that 1300 rated player does a blunder. And 0.1% for 2700. Also lets say that 2700 rated player does punish all blunders immediately and 1300 misses 50% percent of enemy blunder. If the game lasts for 50 moves:
=> First lets calculate the chances of not making a blunder that is not punished:
For 1300: (0.9 ^ 50) = 0.005 = 0.5% chance that 1300 rated player plays so solid that 2700 rated player can't penetrate enemy defenses!
For 2700: (0.999 ^ 50) + (0.001 * 0.5)^50 = 0.951 = 95.1% chance that 2700 player won't give away the position to 1300!
Lets say that 2700 makes at least one mistake in this game. The chances of this is happening is 100% - 95.1% = 4.9%!
Finally, the 1300 rated player should not lose before the mistake happens: 0.005 * 0.049 = 0.000245 = 0.245% chance that 1300 rated player gets a win against 2700. There you go 1300 rated players, there is still hope
Sep 22, 2012
0
#59
I think you aim a bit too high a 1300 might have a shot at a weaker GM but a 2700 noway.
but ok the next born world champion is going to be rated 1300 at some point.
RetiFan wrote:
johnyoudell wrote:
28. Rf7+ maybe gets a question mark (or two).
So do people think the 2700 player would win giving the 1300 player odds of a queen?
He or she has lost their opening book as well as the piece.
My feeling is they would win against a 1300 but perhaps not against a 1500.
They would win against me - I'd be too cautious.
28.Rf7 gets a question mark. Exactly right. Of course I wouldn't have won if he didn't make some blunder. The point is that I was lucky enough that my opponent blundered, I survived long enough to see that happen and I didn't miss my chance when he gave up that rook.
If 2700 is not sleeping as pfren suggested, or drunk, this is the only chance. Lets do some probabilistic calculation.
Let's say there is 10% chance for each move that 1300 rated player does a blunder. And 0.1% for 2700. Also lets say that 2700 rated player does punish all blunders immediately and 1300 misses 50% percent of enemy blunder. If the game lasts for 50 moves:
=> First lets calculate the chances of not making a blunder that is not punished:
For 1300: (0.9 ^ 50) = 0.005 = 0.5% chance that 1300 rated player plays so solid that 2700 rated player can't penetrate enemy defenses!
For 2700: (0.999 ^ 50) + (0.001 * 0.5)^50 = 0.951 = 95.1% chance that 2700 player won't give away the position to 1300!
Lets say that 2700 makes at least one mistake in this game. The chances of this is happening is 100% - 95.1% = 4.9%!
Finally, the 1300 rated player should not lose before the mistake happens: 0.005 * 0.049 = 0.000245 = 0.245% chance that 1300 rated player gets a win against 2700. There you go 1300 rated players, there is still hope
A good analysis with a good conclusion (the 1300 has a slim chance) but I think it is flawed in some details.
You said: "Let's say there is 10% chance for each move that 1300 rated player does a blunder. And 0.1% for 2700. Also lets say that 2700 rated player does punish all blunders immediately and 1300 misses 50% percent of enemy blunder. If the game lasts for 50 moves:"
So, on each move the chance the 2700 rated player makes a blunder that the 1300 player punishes him for, is 0.5 * 0.1% = 0.0005. So the chance he goes the whole game without a punished blunder is 0.9995 ^ 50 = 0.975, which gives a 2.5% chance that the 1300 player punishes him for a blunder.
The other part of your analysis was sound (0.005 chance the 1300 player makes no blunder). So the answer is 0.005 * 0.025 = 0.000125 which is a 0.0125% chance (one game out of 10 thousand games).
Just think how weak the average chess player is and then realize
that half the players are weaker than that....