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

One problem with the analogy is that chess is more punsihing for tiny details. Hanging a queen or mate in 1 is a very simple detail, but it loses you the game on the spot.

There is always a chance but whether it will actually happen is another thing altogether.

From what I've read, there is a 10% chance of winning against someone 400 points higher, and a 1% chance of winning against someone 700 points higher. Looking at players stats of players such as IM Calvin Blocker actually conform to this pretty well- Blocker has been rated 2400-2500 for nearly 20 years, and in 136 games, has just 1 loss and 1 draw to 1700 players, good for a 98.9% win rate. He has never lost to anyone below 1700, despite playing well over 100 games. 

So basically, if a 1300 played a 2000 player 100 times, he might win once. In order for a 1300 player to beat a 2700 player, he would statisically need to play well over a million games. 

Also, Bobby Fischer, in his prime, once lost a serious game to Cesar Munoz, who never earned any sort of master title. For what its worth.

I do not think that the winninggraph is linear. I guess the loosingrate for a 2400 and a 2700 against 1300 will be ca equal (and very low)because everybody can make a blunder. Of course the 2700 does have some extra recoveringpower and endgameskills after the huge blunder, so there will be a slight difference. I dont think its the blunderfrequensy that separates the IM and the superGM, I think its more subtle genious chessskills. Skills that will make a difference when they meet eachother.

Blunders happens to humans. To most of us. Magnus makes them too.

The Elo-rating does not tell much about the winrate against players that is lot of houndred points apart, because they rarely meet.  In large tournaments there is a chance to meet someone, maybe 500 points apart in round one, but after that the rating usually is calculated from battles against players with close to equal strenght. So the ratingnumbers mostly tells about the strenght when playing against ca equals.

You seem like a realsmart chessguy Djonni.  Have you ever lost to a player rated 700?  

On this site? Sure, all he needs is for the 2700 to lose internet connection 

I lost to Tor-Christian Croff Tangenes (N-elo780)in the clubcampionship a year ago. We were both unrated back then. At that time I considered myself as my worst enemy. Today I will meet him again :-)

(780 Norwegian elo is better than the same number in fide, maybe 100-400 points, Tor C isnt Fidelongchessrated yet )

My best win was in the autumntournament last year , Carl Christian Arnes. He had ca 1600 n-elo and 1800 Fide. He had no blunders, but a couple of small mistakes. One of his mistakes was that he played for victory against a player rated at 878 N-elo at the time, despite of standing slightly worse. He could have saved a draw if he ran for it with full power. In stead he went down for a mate in 78 moves. The same mistake is possible to make for a GM. A GM that is slightly behind can get annoyed and go to hard for a victory when meeting a lowrated player.

So I am winning and loosing , partially regardless of my opponents rating. It is the quality of my own moves that actually have made the most differences.

Last year in one game I blundered a knight against a N-elo 588, but was able to push pawns and come on top and win anyway, so I understand that the stronger player can get away with severe blunders.

http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=1500660

If a 1300 rated player gets 1000 hours prep from a GM, is he truly 1300 rated? Many many pages ago, I believe we agreed upon making the 1300 rated player a TRUE 1300 rated player. 

Nevertheless, reaching a 2700 rating is damn near impossible without born talent. Take a look at all of IMs who have studied countless hours and still cant reach GM status... then think, "They still have 200 points to go." 

Prep from a GM will not make the 1300's chances that much better.

Its true that you agreed make him stuck at 1300,

Now I have fallen down to the 1300 `s, so I kind of identify myself with that level, but I will not be stuck there. So I am a teasing bastard that dont follow the rules. Of course I can not afford the prep of my dreams, but I will do all I can to  be ready for Gm Fressinet if I meet him in July. I want to behave like a 1800 wolf in 1375 lambdisguise, going against the troath of a 2712 Rhinosaurus. A problem is that Rhinos have too thick skin, too big horn and to much muscles and weigth. I havn`t figured out yet what to do about it.

Actually I think the whole debate of that a 1300 , who shal be stuck at 1300 shal win against a 2700 is too far out. What is interesting to me isnt that enourmous strenght difference, but how to close some of the gap. I truly believe that the best way to beat a 2700 is to gain as much strenght as possible, and that will elevate the 1300 far above the level of a true 1300. I do not believe that a stuck 1300 will beat a 2700, unless the 2700 fells asleep and looses on time or forgets the cellphone in his pocket.The 1300 with new 1800 strenght will also loose, but he will put up a more interesting, and longer game, that can be very fine to analyze.

Enough talking, lets prep:

Here is how a 2714 beats Gm Laurent Fressinet. I read it once, and I am not finished. You might say its not relevant, but I will say that the 1300 need to learn from the great guys.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250111

More interesting: Is it possible that a 12 year old 2077 can beat Gm Fressinet? I know he will go for it, and if I am very, very lucky I can hang around with Andreas, prepping against him. 

But Andreas isnt a true 2077, he is playing at 2250 strenght these days, and leading our clubchampionship with 10 points in the 10 first games, already won , with one game to go.

I use this debate to gain motivation and ideas before I can meet a monster in Politiken cup. My head is spinning. What to do? What to learn? Can I prep with strong players? Prepping is a new idea to me. I have never done it before, and now the time is coming.

It might be obvious to you, but I actually started looking at Fressinet-games because of this debate.

I dont care about stuck 1300 vs 2700. That doesnt interest me, but the spinoff of the debate is interesting ideas. 

All the ratingmaths are discussed up and down. Enough said about that. I will not add a useful word . I just want to get better. And I think Leko -Fressinet was a fantastic game :-)

I dont understand your stress. You have zero expectations. Try your best.... tht is what you do.

Not stress, excitement. Positive excitement.

We agree that a way a 1300 can beat a 2700, is to elevate up to the same strenght or better, and then he will not be a 1300 anymore.

I think it was a pedagogic breaktrough for myself to start looking at the games of a 2712 that I have a 1 % chance to meet in Politiken cup. That focus on these gorgeous games gives me a much closer approach, focus and motivation, and I know that diving into his games will give me much strenght. Of course not enough to beat him, but enough to take a step further in my own development.

Do what, now?

Something about this last guy's game doesn't sit right.  How does an 1800 miss that he's hanging a queen in a 30/0 game?  

 http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1149433695

I think eigenzeitt is complaining because he didn't get any rating points for winning. Presumably it was an unrated game, but he didn't realize that at the time.

Why an 1800-rated opponent who gets beat by an 1100 is a "stupid 2700 script-playing prince" I don't know.