Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?

"Also, the question is not about the practicality of playing thousands of games without a loss where we start to look at outside factors like fatigue or mental stress."

Right but we can make up scenarios that don't have this problem. For example, the person gradually accumulating an amount of games, playing the 1300s (as well as whoever else he plays in tournaments) might not be taking count of those games, but if we were to take statistics of those games, we might see some games are closer than others, etc, and maybe we would find an oddball somewhere, even if it was over the course of decades.

And of course this would take a long time so we'd have to assume chess players are immortal for my example to carry out probably, etc etc., but it doesn't really matter. The point remains that small likelihoods occur in large samples.

Just to respond and clarify the above post: Don't get too bogged down in theoretical minutiae. There is a deeper underlying point that you seem to be missing regarding 1300s and 2700s. These are just abstract landmarks signifying strength. Unfortunately, this is not theoretically pure because we are not clearly defining the signification. We don't even have an image of 1300 or 2700 clearly in our heads! What this discussion should actually read is: Can a super GM ever lose to a patzer? The answer would be no because, by definition, a patzer does not know how to play chess! Therefore theoretical debate is already stimied by undefined misconceptions and you two are probably arguing with different images in your heads. Regardless, another question: If a 1300 player beats a 2700 player, is that 1300 player really just a 1300? Maybe he is 1300 for now but he is on his way up, or maybe he is getting better from playing the 2700 an unspecified amount of times.

"If a 1300 player beats a 2700 player, is that 1300 player really just a 1300? Maybe he is 1300 for now but he is on his way up, or maybe he is getting better from playing the 2700 an unspecified amount of times."

I get what you're saying, but surely we're familiar with counterexamples on the smaller scale. It certainly happens sometimes where I lose to a somewhat lower rated player, yet soon enough our ratings go back to normal, and the rating margin between me and him remains the same. Sure sometimes an "upset" happens because there is an improving player involved and his rating hasn't caught up to his strength, but clearly this isn't always the case.

True. It's just an interesting question to go after: When do "upsets" happen in chess? It's more interesting than games where skill is less of a factor, but in chess skill is the only factor! I think we can list two aconsistent reasons for any given "upset". One should be Chaos Factor, or how much is beyond human control. In chess this number "seems" like it should always be 0, but because chess and infinity are closely related, this is not the case. Therefore, we can determine that one difference between a 1300 and a 2700 is their handle on the chaos factor in chess. In other words, let's say you take a real life team sport like basketball. Chaos factor is high even for, say, Michael Jordan, because he can't control his team! But in chess, one of the most important things to consider is that as you get better, your chaos factor gets exponentionally closer to 0 as an asymptote. You will never get to 0 because chess is theoretically infinite, but you can get closer and closer, and to someone who is much lower rated than you, your chaos factor could be as low as maybe 10% of their chaos factor! That said, statistically they could beat you given the other factor, which we will call Reach. Reach encompasses how close you are to your full potential as a player on a given day. Now this number is technically unclear: We don't know what talent really is or what constitutes "reaching one's full potential", and so this thought experiment is incomplete. But just know that if one's elo is an expression of current amassed skill(Long explanation:Think of points as currency. The elo system works on the basis that people with higher rating are "richer" than those without and that their wealth is amassed as a correlation of wealth=skill. In other words, you are wagering points every time you play a rated game. Think chips as in poker, they don't necessary have a value other than to be gambled away. Since chess is a game of potentially absolute skill, your amassed wealth has a direct correlation to how much you've won, though not necessarily how much you will win.) and not of future amassed skill. Reach rating is a measure of potential amassed skill. Together, elo rating, chaos factor, and reach rating form a complete triad of skill measurement(past, present, future) meaning that we would, if the measurements work correctly, ascertain with EXACT certainty whether the 1300 or the 2700 will win on a given day. The problem, however, is that chaos factor and reach will not reveal themselves easily. Being that they are more abstract. (Think of elo as a pile of gold, easy right? You can count the coins. Now picture chaos factor as an atomic cloud, and reach as an impossibly tall tree that is basically the universe - the norse might have called it Yggdrassil - the problem with measuring an atomic cloud is that you can't measure it completely due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and if you want to measure how tall someone can climb the world tree on a given day(assuming everyone has a maximal point they can climb to but may not climb to that point on a given day) you're in for a struggle. This is why this topic is so complicated. You guys have made some incredibly simplistic arguments so far, chew on my three concepts and tell me what you think.

You can type all you like but if you want an answer to the question, it is no. A 1300 player would have less chance of beating a 2700 player than a person just starting to learn tennis would have of beating Rafael Nadal. 

On what grounds do you base that assertion?(It's okay if its just your opinion).

1400 points? Awswer: Get a super GM really drunk - and then maybe! Capablanca once lost idiotically because his wife walked in while the woman he was having an affair with was in the audience. (Nothing to do with chess!) I have gotten 500 point upsets in competition before thanks to blunders, so it can happen. But the wait for someone 1,000 points above me to blunder like that - well - it might be a while!

That's the funniest call for evidence that I've seen since reading something by the those who deny evolution.

If rating really matters the why can certain GMs make other GMs look like 1300 rated players?????

ain't nobody denies evolution. that's just a copout by the evolution swallowers.

it would be the equivalent of a college basketball team beating the grizzlies, a college soccer team beating tottenham, a college football team beating the saints... possible in the realm that anything is possible, but very unrealistic

An arbiter could forfeit the 2700 for writing notes like .... "Keep calm, this noob is only 1300, watch your clock and try not to make any serious blunders".

You are on to something.

There are also one thing a lot of you debattants dont realize. The 1300 might be a really good chessplayer, with very good calculation power, but also with a long way to go in different aspects of the game and severe holes in the knowledge.

1300 is not someone just starting out. A 1300 might have a full year of clubchessexperience, maybe more. I ve met a 1300  with more than 150 rated otbgames, and there are 1300s with f.eks. 30 games.

To beat a 1300 playing when his opening goes corrrect with white , and he is focused, have learned to use his time well, that is a very difficult task for players several houndred points above.(Those big shots often wins in the end anyway, because they are really good at difficult tasks).

A 1300 is at his best capable of playing a game that analyzed on chess.com computer has 0 blunders, and maybe two mistakes and two inaccuracies.That is strong enough to make anybody work hard for the victory.

Most of you have met 1300s when they do a mistake to early, maybe in the opening, but they dont do early mistakes in every game. Because of that you dont really see the power of the 1300s.

a few pages ago I was fide1300 (1375), and was looked forward to meet a super-gm in Politiken cup if a lucky 1. round draw.  I wants to try something. But I can not be that 1300 anymore, since I just popped up to 1400.

I am absolutely sure that the quality of the game on 1300 level is more variable than on higher levels. It often has annoying quality, but there are shining games there too. I think some1300s has extreme dynamic in the strenght, probably with a span from 700 to 2000.

The 1800+ players are a bit afraid of meeting the 1300s, because they never know what they meet, and a loss hurts their rating.

It's also possible to train a prodigy until he is about 2780 strength, without playing any rated games, then he bursts onto the scene in a match organized by some millionaire to smash the 2700+, just for a laugh.

There you have it. The 1300 has a 25% chance if the super-GM is Wesley So.

we need an arbiter with "attitude" also, the type that doesn't take prisoners.

Timur, åtte år, setter sjakk matt på GM Jon Ludvig Hammer

My clubmate, Timur Gusarov, 8 years, probably unrated, mated GM Jon Ludvig Hammer (2673) in simultan the 28. May.

I havnt seen the game, but in this position, Hammer with white played the blunder 25.Bg3. The game was a blitz-rapidsimultan or maybe bullet-rapid where Hammer had very little time. But look at the board! GM Hammer is three officers up, but Timur has a killing grip on E1 pinpointed by both the bishop and a completely won E-line occupied with rook and Queen. Maybe Timur have sacrified three officers to win this domination, or maybe GM Hammer was too greedy and moving faster than the speed of his brain. Timur hasnt played the 1300s in our club so far, but some of the kids from his group have started playing with the adults, and they are unrated or between 1000 and 1500.

Timur is a lot of material down, but look how beautiful his pieces are coordinated, and look at his fine kingsafety. GM Hammer has gobbled rook, knight, bishop, but not taken care of his king. He has one passive rook, and one rook unconcious in the corner. His material overweight isnt realized, not on the board, doesnt count in the game yet. While the unrated Timurs pieces are so streamlined and perfectly placed that he looks like a 2900.

Well, he's quite skilled to see those tactics.