18250 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
yeah...but the 1300 still wouldn't be able to win that game :P
i think yes
if the 2700 player does a blunder / the 1300 rating player concentrates
most probably the game would be a fast game like a 1 min game
in which any one can do a blunder ( a GM too )
You could poke his eyes out. But he'd probably have the board memorized by then anyway.
@erikido23 you really don't have a high opinion of 1300's do you!
@ oort...you have been accused of not having a sense of humor once haven't you?
PS..I agree the 1300 would win it...They just wouldn't realize they mated when they played qxe5
I don't know about %, but I have seen a 2500 lose to 1300 in otb, and I have beaten an IM in OTB(although I messed up the later games, this is my proudest achievement).
I would suggest Caro-Kann if you want to try, because I did that vs the IM. My endgame was better, so I won.
no offense, but i highly doubt it, even after a terrible blunder. i suggest trying to turn the game into a learning experience instead of a competition; at least then you will seize the opportunity to its fullest.
@erikido I think you have me confused with someone else and in this case dude it's definitely you that lacks a sense of humour (or at least the ability to recognise a joke when it's made)
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...
What? You've never played 1/0 OTB? You've never lived!
Seriously, just challenge me to a 3/0 whenever you see me on live chess, I'm happy to play. My 3/0 rating is lower though, not even 2000 I think. Clearly I play better without thinking...
Someone i know (2100) just beat topgrandmaster Ivan Sokolov (2699) in a normal time control lague game though
Wow! That must be one of the biggest upsets of all time surely? Would you be able to post the game for us to see?
I am of course answering the question in a very theoretical way. In the practical world, you should never in a million years (literally) expect this kind of thing to happen, or you'd be a fool.
In a gazillion million billion trillion years, though, maybe it's not so unwise to expect it
I keep posting though because there are people who literally think it's impossible, even when talking theoretically.
Not that such people might not be right -- I certainly can't be 100% sure of the answer myself.
isn't it amusing that some blatantly ridiculous and obviously preposterous notions aren't questioned at all, just accepted as truth, while other equally incredulous claims are denounced as such.
in my experience, it seems if you have enough financial and political capital you could claim you have a pet dolphin with dragon wings and people wouldn't question this at all. rather they would ask you "oh wow! what's his name? (can I kiss your butt some more, please?)".
I might perhaps challenge you to a duel, Elubas of Nonesuchchesttershire, if you keep this up.
It's true that there is a lot of speculation here. It's hard to really prove this stuff; all I can say is that this line of reasoning (in my posts), given the choice, is the one that makes the most sense to me.
I could never beat a 2700 in a million years.
No way! Unless it's something like Zukertort's case, but mostly it'll be abandoned. :P
Check out the link
I think a 1300 is rated too high to have a chance. His "chess knowledge" would get in the way of him accidentally playing a good game. A 200 rated player has a small theoretical chance.
lol, so what must 1300 rated player should do is to lose games rapidly, so he can have a chance against 2700.
Nonsense. A 1300s chess knowledge consists mostly of faulty ideas buttressed by the ability to spot two move tactics.
An older man like yourself should be able to relate to someone thinking they know everything after they gain a bit of knowledge. Maybe you don't have teenagers? :-p
I do. My teenagers are now in their 20s, which has raised my IQ slightly in their eyes, although they remain deeply skeptical of all that I claim to know.
I also remember when I thought I was a pretty hot chess player because a good tournament pushed me up to 1525. OTOH, September 2010 was the last time I lost to a player under 1600 in a tournament, and that player was 1602 after the event was rated.
"The Call of the Wild with GM Hansen!"
Did Chess.Com just quit working on Kindle Fire?
by NightVoid a few minutes ago
Most Feared Defences
by SuirenBoid 5 minutes ago
Chess addiction. The cure (I)
by DonaldoTrump 7 minutes ago
7/25/2016 - What Must Be Done
by dennisleach 8 minutes ago
Blitz and Bullet Hurtful?
by aswen123 8 minutes ago
How to read a chess book
by ChessOath 12 minutes ago
by thecentipede 15 minutes ago
White put a mate in 2 moves
by ksilen5 20 minutes ago
What is the most complicated endgame
by SmyslovFan 24 minutes ago
by super-bird 28 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!