Well, a guy tried to Scholar's Mate me! I almost fell for it, and maybe a much higher rated player isn't expecting it and falls for it!
I've seen that happen before on chesskid.com. A 700 beat a 1400 with the scholar's mate!! Ouch! 
ive amnaged a draw with a 560 gap before
I think Hou simply underestimated her opponent and tried to play obscure lines for fun... i doubt Meg will get a good glance at the Chinese GM anymore... she will be in for an @ss whopping next time they meet.
Yes, it's unlikely but not impossible.
Short answer... No.
definitely, use an engine to play your game. like so many who use this site
definitely, use an engine to play your game. like so many who use this site
Then it's an engine beating a 2700 not a 1300 player.
How do you figure that?
Given enough games, a trained chimpanzee would eventually be able to beat Magnus Carlsen.
Only after he'd typed Hamlet!
Given enough games, a trained chimpanzee would eventually be able to beat Magnus Carlsen.
That's good news for Anand.
Only after he'd typed Hamlet!
I didn't work out the math not knowing how many letters (and spaces) are in Hamlet, but on a guess I would say typing Hamlet is more likely.
ehhh...not working it out exactly either I am going to go the other way on it. What is the average number of moves in a particular chess position? like 30 or so? With an average game length of say 40 moves, having the chimp guess correctly there would seem much easier than getting one of 26 letters right for the length of an entire book.
Someone actually put typewriters in a room full of chimps. The most they got was the letter S repeated numerous times. They also got typewriters filled with excrement.
Some may say that's an improvement over what some humans have written, especially in chess forums.
Sergey is beating Carlsen right now!
By 1/5 of a pawn...
Someone actually put typewriters in a room full of chimps. The most they got was the letter S repeated numerous times. They also got typewriters filled with excrement.
Some may say that's an improvement over what some humans have written, especially in chess forums.
Don't forget the typewriter that was thrown through the window that let the chimps escape.
Given enough games, a trained chimpanzee would eventually be able to beat Magnus Carlsen.
That's good news for Anand.
Not sure if racist or not >.>
Only after he'd typed Hamlet!
I didn't work out the math not knowing how many letters (and spaces) are in Hamlet, but on a guess I would say typing Hamlet is more likely.
ehhh...not working it out exactly either I am going to go the other way on it. What is the average number of moves in a particular chess position? like 30 or so? With an average game length of say 40 moves, having the chimp guess correctly there would seem much easier than getting one of 26 letters right for the length of an entire book.
Actually, the whole thing about 1000 chimpanzees eventually typing a Shakespearian play given unlimited time is not statistically correct, it is a myth.
Chimpanzees could never beat Carlsen, but they might stand a chance of drawing, given his recent draw %.
Lol no its not a myth. With enough time, chimps can type not just Hamlet but every book ever written, with (somehwat less) time they could beat Carlsen too.
Its just numbers.
But yeah think of the library of babel...a chimp typing a book at random is just like a chimp picking a book out of the library of Babel at random. hamlet is in the library of Babel, so the chimp could certainly pick it, its just extremely long odds. But if you sent in as many chimps into the library of Babel as there are books, well some chimp is going to walk out with a copy of Hamlet. Also, some chimp is going to walk out with a detailed description of the cure for cancer, as well as a detailed biography of your life, except with your name mispelled on page 79, etc etc etc.
If my understanding of the intent of Professor Elo is correct, a difference of 400 points translates into a 10% chance of scoring a point. Thus you might scrape a draw every five games or a well deserved (?) win every 10 games.
2700 - 1300 = 1400 which is 3.5 x 400. So you have roughly 3 chances in 10,000 of getting your well-deserved win. That is what simulataneous games are for!
Of course the intent of the calibration and the effective calibration are different things . the numbers may not follow the nice probabilistic pattern assumed by Professor Elo but hey! that's life!
Good luck ;=) and Bonnes Parties Tout Le Monde!
Cheers, David
If my understanding of the intent of Professor Elo is correct, a difference of 400 points translates into a 10% chance of scoring a point. Thus you might scrape a draw every five games or a well deserved (?) win every 10 games.
2700 - 1300 = 1400 which is 3.5 x 400. So you have roughly 3 chances in 10,000 of getting your well-deserved win. That is what simulataneous games are for!
Of course the intent of the calibration and the effective calibration are different things . the numbers may not follow the nice probabilistic pattern assumed by Professor Elo but hey! that's life!
Good luck ;=) and Bonnes Parties Tout Le Monde!
Cheers, David
If anybody is interested, here is the formula.
The expected score of a weak player beating a strong player is:
1/{1+10^((strong - weak)/400)}
Some examples of expected score for the weaker player:
| 1800 | 2000 | 0.2402530734 | |
| 1600 | 2000 | 0.0909090909 | |
| 1200 | 2000 | 0.0099009901 | |
| 1300 | 2700 | 0.0003161278 |
So yes, the patzer can win 3 games out of 1000, or 1 game every 333. Nothing to do with the monkeys writing etc.
This is of course what the statistical model say. We can however argue that the model breaks and it's no longer accurate after let's say 400 or 500 points of difference. This is because chess is not a game of chance. While every one of us can win a game thanks to a bit of luck against a similar opponent, with such an enormous rating differential the luck is nullified.
About a year ago I beat a player rated about 600 higher than me OTB. He had a small but persistent advantage most of the game but then blundered twice. The first was enough but he kept playing with the rating gap. I was confident I would win after the first but after the second he resigned.