Everone is talking about the 2700 player making a blunder, but the 1300 player is more likely to blunder!
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.
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)
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.
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.
lol, george something.
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%?
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.
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
Mama Ubik taught all the little Ubiks never to resign against a player below 1000.
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.
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.
I can personally attest to this. I remember when I first hit 1700, I participated in an experiment by playing a 1300 a marathon of 50 games at time control of 10 minutes per game. My score after we finished was 49 wins and 1 loss, and believe me I was pissed off about that loss. Not only did I blunder a piece, but the 1300 played the most precise moves to take advantage of being up a piece. I had snuck out of losing positions against him in other games, but he was on target that game.
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.
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)
Bullet is not chess. Neither blitz is. I have won Anand in a blitz OTB game, this does not make me less of a patzer.
From the view of the 2700 rated person, if there is this slight chance that (s)he can slip, and if (s)he is playing against 1300 rated players often, (s)he surely will lose(Murphy's Law).
It is true that on rare occasions a 2700 player will commit a blunder even a much lower player can see. When it happens, the game gets widely posted.
The problem is that the 1300 never gets anywhere close to the sort of position where the 2700 might commit such an error, and wouldn't win if he did.
Firebrand's example is interesting. We all probably think we are "untouchable" against someone 600 points lower rated or something, but if you were suddenly told you have to beat (can't draw!) this one guy (with such a rating differential) one hundred times in a row, in some marathon, you might start to find yourself daunted. Sure, normally things won't go wrong against such an opponent, but if you have to be that consistent, you really don't have room for Murphy's Law.
Or what if there was an experiment where instead of a hundred games, it was a thousand or ten thousand games or something, played over the course of a lifetime at some sort of rate. Your lower rated opponent would know what he has to do. He is confident that there is bound to be a chance somewhere -- maybe you get careless and misplay the opening, not realizing your move isn't so strong after all, and the determined -600 opponent capitalizes and is proud of himself -- now he has an advantage.
I bet over the course of ten thousand games, that kind of thing would inevitably happen -- maybe most of the time you would wiggle out, but there have got to be certain days where you won't be feeling as confident, or get temporarily blind, and you may continue to falter. It would just be immense pressure to be so consistent that you could always come out with a win, even if the position gets drawish, even if you blunder, when you are playing an absolutely absurd amount of games.
In this question's case, maybe it would have to be more than ten thousand, maybe a million, billion (amounts that couldn't be played in a lifetime), or more. But I could see there being a point where you would expect the 1300 to win once.
Of course there's an issue here:
After losing 100 games, is the 1300 still a 1300? Won't he now maybe be beating 1500's if he wasn't so tied up in this match?
I think it has to be a different 1300 every time.