HighNoon52 wrote:
What about two 1300 players - combined they would be the equivalent of a 2600 player - definitely a reasonable match for a 2700
That HAS to a joke.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
HighNoon52 wrote:
What about two 1300 players - combined they would be the equivalent of a 2600 player - definitely a reasonable match for a 2700
That HAS to a joke.
No, it was the beginning of an insidious plan to merge ten 1300 rated players into one ultimate chess machine.
RetiFan wrote:
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
HighNoon52 wrote:
What about two 1300 players - combined they would be the equivalent of a 2600 player - definitely a reasonable match for a 2700
That HAS to a joke.
No, it was the beginning of an insidious plan to merge ten 1300 rated players into one ultimate chess machine.
Great idea. Down right brilliant! There'll be a Nobel Prize in chess given for this.
RetiFan wrote:
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
HighNoon52 wrote:
What about two 1300 players - combined they would be the equivalent of a 2600 player - definitely a reasonable match for a 2700
That HAS to a joke.
No, it was the beginning of an insidious plan to merge ten 1300 rated players into one ultimate chess machine.
Come on man, I told you about my insidious plan in confidence! How dare you tell everyone my secret!
It was going to look something like this, but without the eye patch . . .
PoPPy-PoPPeT wrote:
[mod: no spam please]
Join Join Join !!!
Hey, quit advertising please, it's not nice.
HighNoon52 wrote:
RetiFan wrote:
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
HighNoon52 wrote:
What about two 1300 players - combined they would be the equivalent of a 2600 player - definitely a reasonable match for a 2700
That HAS to a joke.
No, it was the beginning of an insidious plan to merge ten 1300 rated players into one ultimate chess machine.
Come on man, I told you about my insidious plan in confidence! How dare you tell everyone my secret!
It was going to look something like this, but without the eye patch . . .
lol 
Don't forget the sword.
Masters aren't that strong.
http://www.chess.com/games/results?f=7179439
Especially http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=343387
:) Was inspiration that game.
A colleague in Scotland-Team remembered the lesson:
http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=44141176
I say if the 1300 just divorced, had no sleep, was sick, unconcentrated because someone kept throwing sand at him, blindfolded and played a game of cards at the same time. The 2700 might just stand a chance of winning.
Or the 1300 would just lose equally bad.
Scottrf wrote:
Masters aren't that strong.
http://www.chess.com/games/results?f=7179439
Especially http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=343387
lol
A friend told me that the ratings are set up so a 1000 player has a 1 in 10 chance of winning an 1100 player. So if this is correct a 1300 player would have a 1 in 100,000,000,000,000 chance. 1 in one hundred trillion. So your saying there is a chance! Also take into consideration that in playing that many games, which is not possible, your score would improve for sure.
What about the other 5 games?
Rasparovov wrote:
I say if the 1300 just divorced, had no sleep, was sick, unconcentrated because someone kept throwing sand at him, blindfolded and played a game of cards at the same time. The 2700 might just stand a chance of winning.
Or the 1300 would just lose equally bad.
You've got the ratings reversed.
I think he was being ironic.
I once played a player rated 1400 in a USCF-rated tournament game, blundered my Queen, ended up with King and three pawns vs King, Queen, and Bishop, and he offered me a draw when he had a forced checkmate available.
My biggest upset is beating a 2200 when I was rated 1280 or so (900+ points) in a rated tournament game.
saminslc wrote:
A friend told me that the ratings are set up so a 1000 player has a 1 in 10 chance of winning an 1100 player. So if this is correct a 1300 player would have a 1 in 100,000,000,000,000 chance. 1 in one hundred trillion. So your saying there is a chance! Also take into consideration that in playing that many games, which is not possible, your score would improve for sure.
your friend was mistaken
Well, I Think that we have pritty much covered this topic.
Estragon wrote:
thehedgehog2000 wrote:
1 in 10? When I was 1600 I beat a guy who was 2200 and drew a 2100 in the same tournament.
A great achievement, but there's a 600 point and 500 point spread. The OP asks about a 1400 point spread. As x approaches zero and all that . . .
Hey wait ! It did happen ...right here.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/another-shocker-at-the-world-series-of-chess
What about two 1300 players - combined they would be the equivalent of a 2600 player - definitely a reasonable match for a 2700
not exactly
Thats like saying 2 normal 6th graders together are as smart as a 12th grader