What would happen if a 1300 rated player in daily chess played only 2000's? (0 rating points lost)

Hello everyone, another hypothetical but highly unrealistic situation to discuss. The situation is that there is this hypothetical 1300 in daily chess who wants to play ONLY 2000 and above players because that means this player will not lose rating points for losses, and only in the unlikely event that they win or draw, they will get rating points! This is very much possible as they could rely on wins by timeout since it is daily chess or possibly get a rare win. If they get a few wins and get to a higher rating, then they will start playing higher rated players so that they do not lose rating points for losses at all. Keep in mind that there are VERY few players above 2400 in daily chess on chess.com, so this 1300 would not play any players above 2400 hypothetically. So, given the circumstances, how high do you think their rating could get with this strategy?

 

My opinion: The 1300 rated player would not be able to win games by resignation at first, but they would soon start to win by timeout a few times especially if they had a lot of games going. After a VERY long time, they would improve (rating-wise), but I can't estimate a rating where they would peak at.

 

Your opinions?

Will not work because very few 2000+ rated players will play 1300 rated players, unless they will get paid.

Why should they waste their time?

@notmtwain this is just hypothetical and not realistic as I already mentioned. This is meant for people to voice their opinions, not for someone to actually go out and try this

I guess he would get better at chess so he would become a 2000+ rated player.

If it were let's say an engine set at 1300 then here are my two thoughts:

-If he played an enormous number of games (computer spending all it's time doing then at some point a series of fortunate timeouts would allow it to break 2000 and if he played for long enough even 2400.

- limited to a more reasonable number of games in a time span of a few years then I would guess around 1500 would be a maximum (I am presuming that 1300 is the maximum rating where you don't lose any points. If this isn't true then the peak could be even higher.

P.S it must be noted that the level of the player has nearly no importance as long as it's below the threeshold for losing ratings because at that point the rating can't go down and the wins are mainly based upon timeouts so depend much on skill. The estimate would change if the 2000 are chisen because of high timeout rates.

i think the 1300 would improve faster by playing a 2000 in classical time control games rather than daily

if the 1300 was fortunate enough to get 3 90/30 +60’s vs a 2000 he would have more experience than 1 daily game vs a 2000

with the classical game results and helpful analysis with a proper coach one’s weaknesses can be immediately addressed

my coach has said that playing games and taking lumps against players better, if not considerately better, is the brutally best way to get better

it doesnt have to be hypothetical since if a 1300 joins or currently plays at a club most of the players will be a bit better already- this can only help the lowbie if he can get games and does the work after the games

I think around the point where you can't lose any points is if you are about 750 points lower rated than your opponent. Also, you said if it was a computer program playing a lot of games at once it could get to 2000 even break 2400, but I think you misunderstand that I said this player would likely not encounter opponents above 2400 in daily chess and therefore at around 1750 they would start to lose 1 point per loss if there opponent was rated 2400 so therefore I believe that it would be impossible to reach 2400 as eventually, the player will start losing points once the player's rating increases to a point where they CAN lose rating against their opponent

The 1300 would quit very quickly.

this is hypothetical, and I am assuming the player does not improve in strength while playing the   2000 + players just in rating because they are not losing any points at least at first

Most 2000 players wouldn't waste time playing a 1300. They'd just restrict their games to other players rated around 2000.

So the most likely result would be that the 1300 rarely ever gets a game.

this is supposed to be hypothetical and not realistic

If they played enough games then they would at some point get a series of wins long enough to break 2000. I am talking about billions (maybe even more) of games

I think billions of games is way too much, even if this whole thing is hypothetical. Lets say 10000. How good do you think the player would be then?

Already answered in the first comment. Read for the last ''-'' onwards

ok i see. 1500 seems to be a reasonable estimate. Their rating can't get too good even considering the circumstances

The answer depends on the number of victories compared to the number of defeats.

If you stay 750 points below your opponents, certainly you do not lose any points when losing. Let's imagine that at some point you win a game that puts you 700 points below your opponents. Then, you continue loosing games and points until you are again with a difference of 750. You will only increase your rating steadily if the number of victories is enough to compensate this, which is probably not going to happen if you are playing opponents 750 points above you.

 

 

 

 

once your rating gets higher, you would start playing even higher rated players (until high 2300's players) so that you would still not lose any rating. So then you would have to be over 1700 in rating before you start losing points for each loss

Well, if it is true that you do not lose points again +750 and you only play +750, then you can only go up.

But...why do you think that you do not lose points when the difference between the elos is too large?

According to this differences of more than 400 points between players are considered as a difference of 400 points, and this means losing 1.6 points.

well of course it would be very difficult for the player to win and most of their wins would be by timeout against the higher rated players. That's why I specifically mentioned that this situation would be a daily chess situation

what if the 700 guy has chessbase and the 2000 guy does not use an opening explorer-who wins?

the 2000 would still probably win because they know openings and probably don't need the explorer