Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?

PIRATCH

Maybe in a simultanous game. Or as snowberg pointed out a new chess genius who just started on FIDE tournaments ... Laughing

Would be quiet funny to see.

abdulmajidsayem1

have patience buddy a player who is 2700 right now... was 1300 at some point of timeWink..........keep playing keep enjoying

PIRATCH
abdulmajidsayem1 wrote:

have patience buddy a player who is 2700 right now... was 1300 at some point of time..........keep playing keep enjoying

Not necessary! This 2700 player could as well be first rated at 1800. It depends on the rating rules of that country! Wink

On a FIDE rated tournament with a performance you could easily be rated far above 2000 ELO! Laughing

coolhandjohnnj

Is there any chance that I could get Anne Hathaway to date me?

pfren
skinnypurpleducks wrote:

Hey guys I have seen an 800 beat a 2400!!

...and then you woke up, or not?

ponz111

he is still dreaming...

Actually of course it is possible for a 1300 rate player to beat a 2700 rated player. [I mean that should be obvious]

CraftBukkit

Everone is talking about the 2700 player making a blunder, but the 1300 player is more likely to blunder!

blueemu

I've beaten a 2400+ player.

Of course, I beat him when he was a little kid... several years before he became a strong chess-player.

Elubas

ponz, I'm surprised you have that super theoretical opinion (as I do) and yet you do seem to believe there is zero chance of saving certain positions (from our resign discussions)

ponz111

Yes, it is my wife, next to me. [ she is a very good wife!]

Elubas, and I never said there is zero chance of saving those positions from our resign posts.  You seem to equate theoretically lost  or easy win or very easy win that a novice could do with zero or 100%

Those position we discussed and taking into account who was playing them their best chance was that their opponent would die or be incapaciated or something like that and that is certainly not zero.

Heck, lightening cood strike the superior side- so you will not catch me saying something is impossible.  Reread our conversations. 

Elubas

Or he could inattentively pull a Kramnik -- could.

I think there is a youtube video somewhere (and I watched a tv program about this) that instructs you to do something like count the amount of dribbles and passes a group of four or five basketball players make. And then as you're doing that a guy dressed as a gorilla or something dances around for a few seconds in the middle of it all, and most people don't notice it because their brain is too focused on something else. (By the way, blocking things out is a good thing -- it's what makes us only pay attention to what is important, but it can sometimes lead to strange misses of obvious but unexpected things)

Remember, this is a guy in a gorilla suit -- you can't get more distinct and obvious than that. But stuff like that can be missed just based on what your mind is paying attention to. You can miss obvious things if you're not looking for them. That kind of inattentive blunder that Petrosian and Kramnik made reminded me of that exercise -- they managed to play a huge blunder despite how much they, and any non-beginner, know better. That is a human factor and it can happen to anyone, no matter how rarely.

That can apply to any position, even trivial ones, even allowing a beginner's stalemate when you are up tons of material -- that may not happen in most chess player's lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it is simply impossible.

Elubas

lol, george something.

Ubik42

You can figure out mathematically what the chance to win is using the rating differential chart. Of course it is a small number, but it is not zero. 

There is no force that physically prevents the 1300 from choosing the best move in a position (even for the wrong reasons). And nothing prevents the GM from blundering, even repeatedly. 

 

Even .0001% means they just need to play 10,000 games and the 1300 will come away with a win. Winning 10,000 games in a row is a pretty tall order, no matter what your rating is. If you dont like .0001%, then how about .00001%?

SmyslovFan

I did see an 800 player beat a master once. It was in a junior tournament. The master dropped a piece in the first ten moves or so and resigned. I'll see if I can dig it up. It's in chessbase.

But I think the ratings in that game were provisional. I'll see if I can find it.

Elubas

lol, why on earth would he resign in that situation? I actually posted a topic asking if you would accept a draw offered by an 800 if you were down a piece against him. The purist in me wanted to take a draw, but now, I don't know what I would do. Houdini could probably beat me a piece down, so why can't I beat an 800 Tongue Out

Ubik42
SmyslovFan wrote:

I did see an 800 player beat a master once. It was in a junior tournament. The master dropped a piece in the first ten moves or so and resigned. I'll see if I can dig it up. It's in chessbase.

But I think the ratings in that game were provisional. I'll see if I can find it.

Mama Ubik taught all the little Ubiks never to resign against a player below 1000.

cartmankyle

I've carefully read all the above comments and balanced them
objectively. After long deliberation by the midnight oil and
conference with my colleagues and experts in the field, I've arrived
at the following conclusion: Lollerskates.

rooperi

For a long time my best win here was against a 2105, he lost a piece and resigned on move 7. I dont know if I could have won if he played on.

Estragon
Ubik42 wrote:

You can figure out mathematically what the chance to win is using the rating differential chart. Of course it is a small number, but it is not zero. 

There is no force that physically prevents the 1300 from choosing the best move in a position (even for the wrong reasons). And nothing prevents the GM from blundering, even repeatedly. 

 

Even .0001% means they just need to play 10,000 games and the 1300 will come away with a win. Winning 10,000 games in a row is a pretty tall order, no matter what your rating is. If you dont like .0001%, then how about .00001%?

 

A couple of points statistically speaking:  first, there is no real way to measure the chance of a 1300 beating anyone over 1700.  The chance is as close to zero as it can get at that point (in Elo system), so it is not correct to assume there is "less" of a chance for someone three times the maximum deviation.

And in those maximum+ cases, there is only a "theoretical" chance; it is so low it won't actually happen.  The number of games is not a real thing; the astronomical odds are the same for each individual game.

Remember, this isn't a contest of blitz or rapid games, the original question concerned classical chess games. 

 

Perhaps the clearest illustration of this is that it has never happened and, in the real world, it will never happen. 

fzweb
skinnypurpleducks wrote:
pfren wrote:
skinnypurpleducks wrote:

Hey guys I have seen an 800 beat a 2400!!

...and then you woke up, or not?

no i am serious i have seen an 800 beat a 2400, i saw it!!! his name is george something he is rated 800 and his best win is a 2400

Yeah, in bullet though. I would like to see how the game went though (can't, probably because I'm on a basic membership)

http://www.chess.com/members/view/George1st