### Forums

### Most Recent

- First opening that you've learned ?
- Bobby Fischer was rated 1726 in 1956...
- Finding the best idea.
- Post some of your best games here!
- 50 things not to do during a chess game
- TOPALOV: professional chess will end within 50 years - interview
- what are some good ways to improve quickly
- Hyper Accelerated Dragon
- Live Chess How do I select :"Use submit button to confirm move"
- Story Time: A Forum Game

### Forum Legend

- Following
- New Comments
- Locked Topic
- Pinned Topic

Yes, I am assuming both players's strengths remain constant. It's actually not so implausible to have a 1300 who plays a lot and doesn't improve -- maybe he doesn't even study his games so much or has a serious hope to improve, but just feels like playing the stronger player and seeing if he can get the upset. Of course, the 1300 would learn more about the 2700's style of play, but it could also be argued the 2700 would learn the 1300's style of play better too, to figure out the best way to crush him. So that's the sort of picture I had in my mind.

But yeah, maybe the challenge could just be the 2700 having to play a certain amount of 1300s every day, a different one each time.

Christ, this is still going?

NO!

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.

The astronomical odds are the same for each game, yes, but if you play an astronomical number of games...statistically it becomes likely.

The odds against winning the lottery are astronomical for each individual. Yet, someone still manages to win.

Truly, a trained chimpanzee moving pieces randomly could win also, though they should probably pack a flashlight so they can continue playing after the sun has gone nova.

Don't believe that? Picture 20 games with a chimp vs. a GM. Odds are one of the twenty games a chimp has opened with 1. d4 . Black's game could already be in its last throes. Anything to prevent that chimp from playing 2. c4 next?

hmm yes good point, can't believe no-one else has made that point in 1000 posts. Incredible.

Of course, this forum topic can't be locked because this question will always be repeated by different 1300 rated players and this contributes to a test of mine which I will reveal now:

- I made some calculations using a fair level of mathematics involved, and found that the chances are 1 in 8000 which I shared with you guys a 1000 posts ago.

- Still, I wasn't sure that if there is this little chance or not, or actually calculations are wrong in this marginal situation and therefore there could be a better chance.

- The best way of dealing with this uncertainty, is to learn infinite ideas from an inifinite number of comments which eventually lead me to a decision if 1/8000 is final.

- Most of you guys believe that there is this theoretical chance if the 2700 guy doesn't sleep(thanks to IM pfren for starting this classic response which I saw a couple times after him), however 1300 guy doesn't get the chance to exploit this by playing so many games against masters.

- This is the conclusion of this topic until a new one erases it.

- Maybe there is another argument which is better than this, who knows?...

1. A seven year old with tons of talent makes it to a 1300 rating.

2. He studies chess for years; tweaking his system of thinking, studying endgames, strategy, tactics, etc., and in 10 or so years basically masters the game to a great degree.

3. Then he plays a 2700, who somehow blunders in time pressure. Yes, the kid is officially 1300 but it doesn't reflect his current playing strength.

You know what, this is ludicrous. A better question would be can they beat an expert, and if they do win they're clearly not 1300 strength anymore and need to play more games.

interesting, yes. hmmm. a real thinker.

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!

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

buddy i see ua point but i was trying to boost his confidence

The discussion was not about someone who is underrated. The question was about someone with an established 1300 OTB rating beating a 2700.

1300 is slightly above average for a high school chess player.

2700 is world class for a chess player.

Is there any chance an

high school football team could beat an NFL team?averageIs there any chance an

high school soccer team could beat a Champions League group winner?averageDo you want to continue calculating the odds on "never gonna happen"?

I think if there is 300 ELO point difference between two players it's no point playing the game. Practically the player with lower ELO has 0 winning chance.

I think if there is 300 ELO point difference between two players it's no point playing the game. Practically the player with lower ELO has 0 winning chance.

If you look at the statistics of many players, their best wins will surely be against 300 higher rated players, so your argument is flawed.

Statistically, the higher rated player should score 8.5/10 against someone rated 300 points lower.

15% is hardly "0 winning chance".

I don't know from where you got your data, but I am sure not from tournament results (the fact is 7+ 2= 1- out of 10)

I got the statistics from the FIDE website, which has a link to the Elo probability table:

http://www.chesselo.com/probabil.html

hmm yes good point, can't believe no-one else has made that point in 1000 posts. Incredible.

I feel sorry for anyone reading 1000 posts in this thread. I read the first page and a couple of the last pages. I don't feel much smarter.

I think if there is 300 ELO point difference between two players it's no point playing the game. Practically the player with lower ELO has 0 winning chance.

I f you want to troll, you are doing it RONG. You should start a thread with the title

"if there is 300 ELO point difference between two players it's no point playing the game. Practically the player with lower ELO has 0 winning chance.

"Genius! I predict 1000 flame posts, and you wont even have to respond.

totally possibly, if the 2700 had a connection interupted thing, which happens about 5 times per day for me

totally possibly, if the 2700 had a connection interupted thing, which happens about 5 times per day for me

True, Scheppy.

they were talking about online chess. But they were talking about an official, rated OTB game between two adults with established ratings.If