FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Actually, a drunk 2700 would still win 99 of 100 games against a sober 1300.
Better to sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian.
My final answer: the 1300 can't beat the 2700, because the 2700 sees more then the 1300 :-) hope that sets it straight finally.
@solskytz: Ah, yes, I never realized that. Looks like I have to give up my argument
It could be possible when the 2700 plays against 25 or 30 players in exhibition. The pace is very fast. Each player has 5 or 10 minutes to concentrate while the pro has only seconds. Running boards after boards, he can't make any plans and probably can't remember the last move. Some of the players should win and good chances there's 1300 or even less in that gang... But in a real game, it's something else...
You underestimate their strength. Pro players can play at an excellent level on autopilot, working without really calculating and using only pattern recognition.
I've been co-organizer of strong simuls with the likes of Kramnik or Anand ~15 years ago. They didn't lose any single game when pitted against 35 students in the rating range 1500-2300...
<Etubas> Definitely :-)
<hicetnunc> When you have 2300 level students, I'd say you're in pretty good shape chesswise.
OBVISLY 1400 player can win JUST NOT LIKLY
Hey, stop quoting Mudville, will ya?
This way there is no need to play chess.
simply compare the ratings, the one rated higher wins because he "sees" more than the lower rated player, if they have the same rating, simply it's a draw
There's plenty of reason to play when ratings are within a few hundred points.
Applying the "magical" ELO formula that returns the expected winning percentage of a player based off the rating difference, the 1300 player will win about 0.032% of games.... thats a measly 4 wins per 125 games.
It's hard to say whether the ELO system is very accurate when estimating the expected winning percentage of such a match because of the huge rating difference between the players. But still, 4 - 121 in favor of the 2700 player tells a strong story.
I think that you are misreading the Elo data. A 2700 playing a simul against 125 1300 players might give up four games on a bad day.
Yep, must be a misread...
Whether it is a misread or not, I highly doubt that the ELO formula for a match between two players with such a vast rating difference holds well...
It was probably not designed with rating differences so vast in mind.
0.032% isn't 4 in 125, it's 4 in 12500. Still seems a little high IMHO
12,500 games is a lot of games. Sure, if you've won 10 games in a row you may feel like nothing in the world will stop you, but 12,500 games, on the other hand, is a lot of games.
Yes this is very true, 12500 games is a lot. I just have a really hard time getting my head around the idea of a 1300 ever beating a 2700. It'd kind of be like a junior varsity basketball team beating an NBA team.
Well, anyone, really anyone, can blunder in chess -- in fact just recently an IM blundered pretty badly against me. It was that sort of unbelievable how-on-earth-can-someone-so-good-fall-for-that sort of moment. I don't think there is really an equivalent to that when it comes to the example you gave. I don't see how you could lose the game with "a blunder" in basketball; it's more that you just get outplayed in the long run.
As far as a true 1300 outplaying a 2700 move by move (strategy, tactics, everything), instead of the 2700 just making an outright blunder at some point before the 1300, that may well be completely, utterly impossible. But games can be lost just as a result of one bad move . I have experienced it more times than I would have liked to learn that.
This is true, but I think it would still have to be a really bad blunder, like a queen or missing a mate in three or something. It seems that on the relatively rare occasions when super gm's do blunder it's in time trouble or particularly complicated positions, both of which they'd easily be able to avoid if they wanted to.
I'm not saying you're wrong because I really don't know. Maybe the only way to get any idea of the percentages involved would be to look at all the games ever played between very highly rated players and much lower rated players (which would likely mostly all be simul's) and see if and how many times this has actually happened.
I think on this thread the best anyone has come up with has been about a 1900 or so beating like a 2700 in a simul? I'd also guess (although I am completely guessing here) that there have been more than 12500 such games played.
I admit that anyone winning more than 3000 straight games against anyone else seems unlikely, but the difference in ability also just seems insurmountable.
I don't have any official rating but I imagine it wouldn't be too much higher than 1300 and I can't for the life of me imagine ever even coming remotely close to beating a super gm! :)