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.
It is not so much the score but the knowlege that gets that score. A monkey who knows how to play has every move as a candidate move. However someone who knows a little has a few candidate moves every turn. His limited knowlege will elimanate moves he needs to make. So that person will not have the theorectical chance to make all the correct moves.
edit: Basically what I am saying is if you put all the legal moves into a hat and randomly picked one you have a small chance. However if a 1300 tries to come up with the best moves based on how he plays chess...then all the moves are not in the hat and he loses every time.