i think if the new player join in chess.com but its rating is higer than 2700 in outside it can be...
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
Elubas: In regards to the monkey, you are correct. To put this in chess terms, if an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, some of them will beat him. Well, actually that's an incorrect statement - to be accurate, an infinite number of monkeys will beat him. Both the number of games played and the number of games won by the monkeys are "countable infinities," you see...
The point to understand is this: when you play chess, all the moves are right there in front of you. If you happen to pick the right ones (even if you know nothing about chess strategy and just make random moves), you too can play like a grandmaster. Given that, the odds of the stronger player winning is never 100%.
OBIT wrote:
Elubas: In regards to the monkey, you are correct. To put this in chess terms, if an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, some of them will beat him. Well, actually that's an incorrect statement - to be accurate, an infinite number of monkeys will beat him. Both the number of games played and the number of games won by the monkeys are "countable infinities," you see...
The point to understand is this: when you play chess, all the moves are right there in front of you. If you happen to pick the right ones (even if you know nothing about chess strategy and just make random moves), you too can play like a grandmaster. Given that, the odds of the stronger player winning is never 100%.
In a 50 move game A lot of 1300`s plays maybe 45 moves as a GM now and then, and maybe 4 inaccuracies and one bad move. In such games they will loose.
A Gm usually plays 50 or 49, og maybe 48 moves as a GM.
In his best games the 1300 have more Gm-like moves.
This is of course based on empty guesswork, and might not be true at all, but I can see from chess.com computeranalyze that in my best game when I was close to 1300 fide (which I have never been, my first rating was 1422), that ther were only two inaccuracies, and those two was the moves leading to a victorious line.
But that wasnt against a GM. The GM made me move bad. He pushed so hard that I played out of balance. It is much easier to play clean games against normal strenght players.
Once Fritz scored my game as having zero errors.
Doesn't mean much. I eventually lost a pawn and the game.
A few inaccuracies and 1 blunder is more like GM level play. 1300, held to the same standard, is more like >50% of the moves are inaccuracies and there are multiple game losing blunders.
leiph18 wrote:
Once Fritz scored my game as having zero errors.
Doesn't mean much. I eventually lost a pawn and the game.
A few inaccuracies and 1 blunder is more like GM level play. 1300, held to the same standard, is more like >50% of the moves are inaccuracies and there are multiple game losing blunders.
If thats true I did play a couple of games as a GM (against players at my own strenght), but the problem is that the GM´s is sabotaging my game so heavy that it is impossible to play accurate against them. Because of the pressure my error-rate will increase.
Yes, either you played as a GM or I don't put much faith in the chess.com computer analysis :)
How long does chess.com analyze a game anyway? Did you know some people put their game into their personal computer and let the engine analyze all night?
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
leiph18 wrote:
Once Fritz scored my game as having zero errors.
Doesn't mean much. I eventually lost a pawn and the game.
A few inaccuracies and 1 blunder is more like GM level play. 1300, held to the same standard, is more like >50% of the moves are inaccuracies and there are multiple game losing blunders.
If thats true I did play a couple of games as a GM (against players at my own strenght), but the problem is that the GM´s is sabotaging my game so heavy that it is impossible to play accurate against them. Because of the pressure my error-rate will increase.
A Fide 1300 is a talented good player, but not refined yet. He/she is maybe playing like online 1600. I dont think there are 50 % inaccuracies. I guess 5 to 20% of inaccuracies and one bad blunder in ca 50% of the games are more common.
Like I said, I mean held to the same standards as the GM.
Think of it this way, if the 1300 only makes 4 or 5 non-best moves in a whole game, what separates players from 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, etc?
But yes, lets say lots of pieces are traded early or the opponent is always making blunders, then yes you can even have a perfect game.
But if the players are evenly matched (and the pieces aren't traded off quickly) there will be a lot of bad moves.
I like fiction to...
leiph18 wrote:
Once Fritz scored my game as having zero errors.
Doesn't mean much. I eventually lost a pawn and the game.
A few inaccuracies and 1 blunder is more like GM level play. 1300, held to the same standard, is more like >50% of the moves are inaccuracies and there are multiple game losing blunders.
I made computeranalyze in a game against 1500 online. In this game, which he won, your estimations is a lot more accurate than mine. The inaccuracies is not far from 50%. It was equal before my final blunder.
leiph18 wrote:
Yes, either you played as a GM or I don't put much faith in the chess.com computer analysis :)
How long does chess.com analyze a game anyway? Did you know some people put their game into their personal computer and let the engine analyze all night?
They analyze maybe 7 minutes and tells me they have 2500 strenght. If thats true we can guess that the overnightanalyzes somebody does is well above 3000.
leiph18 wrote:
Like I said, I mean held to the same standards as the GM.
Think of it this way, if the 1300 only makes 4 or 5 non-best moves in a whole game, what separates players from 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, etc?
It is both the number of errors, but also the size of the errors. A 1300 maybe make a totally loosing error in 50% of the games (and some minor errors). A 2200 usually doesnt make big errors, only small ones, and of course not so many.
A 5 error game is obviously among the better ones from a 1300, usually there are more errors, but not always.
In otb-tournaments at my best I do beat players rated 700 above me, but of course I usually loose to them. (Best victory 1600 Norwegian-elo /1800 fide when I was 878 N-elo). Actually I usually am in big trouble meeting 700 above.
0
#2675
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
OBIT wrote:
Elubas: In regards to the monkey, you are correct. To put this in chess terms, if an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, some of them will beat him. Well, actually that's an incorrect statement - to be accurate, an infinite number of monkeys will beat him. Both the number of games played and the number of games won by the monkeys are "countable infinities," you see...
The point to understand is this: when you play chess, all the moves are right there in front of you. If you happen to pick the right ones (even if you know nothing about chess strategy and just make random moves), you too can play like a grandmaster. Given that, the odds of the stronger player winning is never 100%.
In a 50 move game A lot of 1300`s plays maybe 45 moves as a GM now and then, and maybe 4 inaccuracies and one bad move. In such games they will loose.
A Gm usually plays 50 or 49, og maybe 48 moves as a GM.
In his best games the 1300 have more Gm-like moves.
This is of course based on empty guesswork, and might not be true at all, but I can see from chess.com computeranalyze that in my best game when I was close to 1300 fide (which I have never been, my first rating was 1422), that ther were only two inaccuracies, and those two was the moves leading to a victorious line.
But that wasnt against a GM. The GM made me move bad. He pushed so hard that I played out of balance. It is much easier to play clean games against normal strenght players.
That is absolutely not true. GMs consistently make the first or second "best" move. A 1300 comes no where close. Take any 1300 level game on here and let houdini analyze it and you will see what I mean. When I say this, I mean when the game leaves book as well
what happens in our country is that immigrants from other African countries with excellent chess skills and no official rating, comes and play in tournaments with 1200 provisional rating. The one person I lost against is now 1950 already and just 2 years ago was near 1300. He told me 2 years ago that he is a petrol pump attendant. Unfortunate that so many talent is lost in Africa because of politics and corruption.
To the original post: Yes!
BMeck wrote:
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
OBIT wrote:
Elubas: In regards to the monkey, you are correct. To put this in chess terms, if an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, some of them will beat him. Well, actually that's an incorrect statement - to be accurate, an infinite number of monkeys will beat him. Both the number of games played and the number of games won by the monkeys are "countable infinities," you see...
The point to understand is this: when you play chess, all the moves are right there in front of you. If you happen to pick the right ones (even if you know nothing about chess strategy and just make random moves), you too can play like a grandmaster. Given that, the odds of the stronger player winning is never 100%.
In a 50 move game A lot of 1300`s plays maybe 45 moves as a GM now and then, and maybe 4 inaccuracies and one bad move. In such games they will loose.
A Gm usually plays 50 or 49, og maybe 48 moves as a GM.
In his best games the 1300 have more Gm-like moves.
This is of course based on empty guesswork, and might not be true at all, but I can see from chess.com computeranalyze that in my best game when I was close to 1300 fide (which I have never been, my first rating was 1422), that ther were only two inaccuracies, and those two was the moves leading to a victorious line.
But that wasnt against a GM. The GM made me move bad. He pushed so hard that I played out of balance. It is much easier to play clean games against normal strenght players.
That is absolutely not true. GMs consistently make the first or second "best" move. A 1300 comes no where close. Take any 1300 level game on here and let houdini analyze it and you will see what I mean. When I say this, I mean when the game leaves book as well
Maybe you are right, but we are talking about 1300 Fide, which is ca the same strenght as 1500 online. I can see absolutely beautiful chess from 9 year old kids in my club, but they never where 1300 fide, they jumped to 1420-1450 the first time they got fiderating. Those kids can take down a-A-class players, but they must win advantage before the endgame. The masters are usually better in the endgame. And of course, one of those kids , Andreas Tenold, did beat a GM in simultan. The other won drew if I remember right. That draw was either real, or the Gm might have been kind to the little girl.
OBIT wrote:
Elubas: In regards to the monkey, you are correct. To put this in chess terms, if an infinite number of monkeys played Magnus Carlsen, some of them will beat him. Well, actually that's an incorrect statement - to be accurate, an infinite number of monkeys will beat him. Both the number of games played and the number of games won by the monkeys are "countable infinities," you see...
There are two little errors in your statement:
The number of games which are won by the sides might also be uncountable infinite if there are uncountable many monkeys (which you didn't specify). Of course I know that it is senseless (even in theory) to play uncountable many opponents (and to sum up uncountable many non-zero probablities is also not very mathematical) but show me enough monkeys to beat Carlsen and I will withdraw my argument. ;)
Moreover Carlsen maybe just have found out how to always play for a draw. Then he will lose no game.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
As a 1300 I won a queen for a knight against an expert and lost. It was a 20 minute game but still...