Obvious. A 2700 has a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of beating a 1300.
Proof?
I don't need theory. I understand that in theory, this is true, but have 2700s actually beatn 1300s 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time?
If not, then I don't trust your numbers. Facts/reality >>> theory.
If you had an infinite amount of 2700s playing an infinite amount of monkeys, you would think they would beat the monkeys in at least some of the matchups. Similarly here, when you go out to infinity, you will find some cases of a 2700 beating a 1300. I get that my mathematical formulas seem far from reality, but in the end we should be able to make some real life conclusions from analyzing them.
The 2700 mostly beaten 1300s.
Oh lol, I just glanced at the title.
Decent concept for a troll thread, but you're losing it at the end. Why would you care specifically about exactly 2700 v exactly 1300? I could understand asking what it's like when a super GM plays a weak club player (and I've given you a few examples) , but the fixation on exact rating makes no sense, unless of course you're trolling because another thread asked the exact opposite question, which is "can a 1300 beat a 2700?" If you're implying that my examples don't refute your theory that a 2700 can't beat a 1300 you're obviously wrong. If a 2700 can crush a 1400, he can certainly crush a 1300. There's very little difference between 1300 and 1400. The difference in strength between weak club players is usually how often they blunder, but since it only takes one blunder to lose to a 2700, the point is moot b/c the 2700 crushes the weak player after a single inaccuracy.
In the simul example, there were 12 players within a 1200 point range and I think each was around 100 points apart. So probably a 1300 or reasonably close to it
Saying you're confident Carlsen could beat a 1300 but you're not confident a 2700 could do so is so stupid it's laughable, unless of course you're trolling. In the future, you may want to try and argue a little better. For instance, you could try and discount/differentiate my example by saying something like "I'm interested in competitive games, not simuls". You would maintain a shred more credibility than saying that "Magnus can beat 1300s but 2700s can't." For your trolling grade, B for the original topic, C- for the arguing after the fact, D for mainting the illusion of a real thread.
P.S. Since you're so particular about exact rating, which rating system are you interested in? Top players use FIDE rating, but FIDE usually starts around 1500 or so. There are almost no FIDE 1300 players because of the way the rating system works.
P.P.S The chances of playing a 2700 in a tournament are almost zero if you're 1300. You'd have to play a huge open event, like the World Open or Millionaire Chess or maybe the US Open, although there aren't always 2700s b/c the prize is pretty low. Then you'd have to be paired against one. The pairing system pairs the top player by rating against the middle player by rating. If you're 1300 you're going to be near the bottom for rating. You would either need an extremely bottom heavy tournament or have to win several games in order to be paired against the 2700 in the later rounds. So it's not going to happen. I'm an active USCF player rated 1750 and the highest player I've ever played was USCF 2400
The 2700 mostly beaten 1300s.
I haven't seen a single game where this has been the case.
We can also theoretically reach the speed of light if we continue improving the efficiency of particle accelerators, but we haven't done it yet. Thus, we haven't reached the speed of light.
In the same way, until there's solid proof that a 2700 beat a 1300, you can't definitely say that a 2700 can beat a 1300. Which brings us back to the original topic: are 1300s potentially better than 2700s? Wat repercussions could this have on chess as a whole?
Maybe it's possible that it's impossible for a 2700 to beat a 1300? Maybe binary could tell us about that :)
Decent concept for a troll thread, but you're losing it at the end. Why would you care specifically about exactly 2700 v exactly 1300? I could understand asking what it's like when a super GM plays a weak club player (and I've given you a few examples) , but the fixation on exact rating makes no sense, unless of course you're trolling because another thread asked the exact opposite question, which is "can a 1300 beat a 2700?" If you're implying that my examples don't refute your theory that a 2700 can't beat a 1300 you're obviously wrong. If a 2700 can crush a 1400, he can certainly crush a 1300. There's very little difference between 1300 and 1400. The difference in strength between weak club players is usually how often they blunder, but since it only takes one blunder to lose to a 2700, the point is moot b/c the 2700 crushes the weak player after a single inaccuracy.
In the simul example, there were 12 players within a 1200 point range and I think each was around 100 points apart. So probably a 1300 or reasonably close to it
Saying you're confident Carlsen could beat a 1300 but you're not confident a 2700 could do so is so stupid it's laughable, unless of course you're trolling. In the future, you may want to try and argue a little better. For instance, you could try and discount/differentiate my example by saying something like "I'm interested in competitive games, not simuls". You would maintain a shred more credibility than saying that "Magnus can beat 1300s but 2700s can't." For your trolling grade, B for the original topic, C- for the arguing after the fact, D for mainting the illusion of a real thread.
P.S. Since you're so particular about exact rating, which rating system are you interested in? Top players use FIDE rating, but FIDE usually starts around 1500 or so. There are almost no FIDE 1300 players because of the way the rating system works.
P.P.S The chances of playing a 2700 in a tournament are almost zero if you're 1300. You'd have to play a huge open event, like the World Open or Millionaire Chess or maybe the US Open, although there aren't always 2700s b/c the prize is pretty low. Then you'd have to be paired against one. The pairing system pairs the top player by rating against the middle player by rating. If you're 1300 you're going to be near the bottom for rating. You would either need an extremely bottom heavy tournament or have to win several games in order to be paired against the 2700 in the later rounds. So it's not going to happen. I'm an active USCF player rated 1750 and the highest player I've ever played was USCF 2400
And an A+ for making you write out this incredibly long response? I've read your entire comment (and USCF ratings would be fine if you're able to provide an actual example - then I'll gladly concede); now please read my previous comment about theory vs. reality.
Stop messing out with the gravity laws dud, you are about to explode this universe with your questions.
Stop messing out with the gravity laws dud, you are about to explode this universe with your questions.
Is this not how you climb the stairway to truth?
(Assuming there are no termites)
No, you just open your phone call an UberChopper and get to the truth. Izi pizy.
........................................................................probably
2700
-1300
_______
1400 You'd have to eat this many bowls of your favorite cereal before you could get the same amount of fiber in JUST ONE bowel of 2700 rated chess! jk sorry sorry, couldn't help it lol.
StairwayToTruth wrote:
" Can't seem to find any record of a 2700 vs 1300 game. Can someone with proficient chess game-finding skills help out?
I shall accept the proof when I see the pudding. After all, I'm a very objective, analytical individual."
I see your point. The chances of a 2700 player beating a 1300 player in an individual game is next to nil because such a game will almost never happen in real tournament or match play. Should this near impossible event actually take place, everyone knows who they would bet their money on, but would it ever happen? And would anyone care enough about it to publicize it.
So it's settled. A 2700 cannot beat a 1300. We should then begin to take lessons from 1300s. Make THEM the GMs!
Your conclusions are erroneous.
I do not support this thread. For all of the information do a forum search like this: same name, except more entertaining.
I don't know of any thread asking this question; thus, this is a unique thread asking a unique question and searching for unique information.
A 2700 is more experienced.