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

Why not less than 0? People start throwing out numbers wily-nily. As, this number exists, therefor that number is possible, proving the third number is conceivable. Less than 0 is an irrational number, want to talk mathematics?

A 1300 player can easily beat a 2700 player... with a baseball bat... before the game... then, he'll beat him at chess as well.

... with the chess board.

Why not less than 0? People start throwing out numbers willy-nilly. As, this number exists, therefor that number is possible, proving the third number is conceivable. Less than 0 is an irrational number, want to talk mathematics?

"Less than 0" could be negative one or negative 456/1000. Those are RATIONAL numbers. And yes, I do want to talk mathematics!

Good bye!

Sure this has been said, but FIDE uses an Elo system with a standard devation of 2000/7.  Thus the mathematical probablity of a 1300 rated player beating 2700 rated player is 

xz[ |x1 - x2| / σ ] = xz[ | 2700-1300 | / (2000/7) ] = 4.792845 x 10^-7

or about 1 in 2086443.  Meaning that you would exepect the lower rated player to win on average 1 game out of 2 million.  Of course this model does not work perfectly and doesn't take in to account the individual's rating confidence interval.  But mathmatically speaking there is a chance.

People want to believe anything is possible. This conclusion is not based on mathematical equations, but is simply a philosophy so to speak. Mathematical infinities are then employed to support a philosophical belief.

The question is entirely mathmatical, because the rating system is math.  The prompt is not asking if I could beat Magnus, but if a 1300 player could beat a 2700.  By using the rating system in the question you are pulling it away from an opinionated question into a question of math.  I am merely giving the answer based on how the rating system works.  

Of course the rating system is inaccurate.  Everyone in chess knows not to take ratings to seriously.  Ratings say little to nothing about the style of play or the player themselves, it merely sums up trends in the relative and historic preformances against other players.

So could I beat Magnus Carlsen-not in a million years -opinion.

What is the probality (chance) that a 1300 beats a 2700 - ~1 in 2 million

A 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance.

I'll bet against it every day until hell freezes over, knowing that I will always collect and even on that rare day when I lose, I will not need to pay.

You may need to go back 100 pages or so, but data was presented in this thread showing that when the Elo difference exceeds 500, the higher rated player tends to overperform statistically.

So what are the chances the sun won't rise tomorrow? Get out your calculator. What are the odds? There is always a chanch right? People just don't get it. Statistical chances are NOT proof of anything being possible.

@Ziryab Ah I see I figured it was posted somewhere in this tread but I haven't read all 166 pages yet.  

The universe is x years old. It is expected to last for y years. Chances are the sun won't rise tomorrow is z. However small the odds are, there remains the possibilty. The math never lies. BS. But it does play games with your head.

Numbers can not take into account certainty. Laws govern the universe. They can not be broken. No matter how you jiggle the numbers.

Rasputin... the mathematical chances have been shown to be 1 in 2 million games. This is considered proof that it could happen.

I am still waiting for someone to calculate the odds for a 100 vs 3000. That must be an interesting number.

Some people severely lack imagination and the will to think.

@ mdinnerspace
You happened to post 4 times before I typed that :p

Calculate 100 vs 3000, ok, I am waiting on download. It shouldn't take very long.

Look like for 100 vs 3000 Elo expects 1 point every 17.78 million games for the 100 rated player.