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

You can play chess as a random game, just make random moves. If there is a best move in a position, your chance of making it is simply 1/(number of possible moves). 

The chimp has a chance.

Even terms like "impossible" or "never" have to be intended in relation to humanity. Not to some abstract concept that our minds cannot even comprehend.

That you randomly do always the best move in a chess game purely by chance is impossible. It will never happen.

In fact considering 20 possible moves in every position, and assuming with perfect play the GM would be defeated in only 40 moves, the chances of this happening are 1 out of 1.099511627776e+52

You know what that number means?

It means that it's impossible.

Chimp has no chance. Chimp will die of old age before having even started.

Anyone who has played bullet on this site is well familiar with this practice.

The 2700 rated player could make a large blunder in underestimating the 1300 rated player, but ultimately this would be highly, highly unlikely.

"You know what that number means?

It means that it's impossible."

You're changing the definition of impossible. The number simply represents an extremely low chance that we should never expect to witness. Just because something is possible doesn't mean you should get your hopes up in any way at all.

Yes, when we colloquially use the word impossible we sometimes use it simply referring to very low chances. But here, it makes more sense to use the standardized definition of impossible so we all know that when we say "impossible" we are referring to the same thing. If your definition of impossible is a chance of either 0% or something close to 0% then I would agree it is impossible.

maybe if the gm took a massive dose of smack and was nodding off u may be able to rearrange the peices to a winning position without hium noticing

No.

Thats like asking if oj simpson has a chance at a retrial

What about 1.099511627776e+52 chimps?

(Of course, if it was against Kasparov instead of Carlsen, you would need 1.099511627776e+52 arbiters also, to prevent Kasparov from cheating in that one game he is losing)

If you apply the definition of ELO rating, the weakest player has:

1/(1+10^((2700-1300)/400)))= 0.0316% chance of winning.

Not impossible, but definitly not likely.

Based on those odds, it becomes pretty likely over the course of say 10,000 games.

maybe, if the 1300 has been studying but only played like, ont

ne tourname

Please be relevant, helpful & nice!

To answer this post, You can read my analysis of Carlsen vs Karjakin. Here is the link:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/carlsen-vs-karjakin?page=2

1300 vs 2700 isn't a real contest.

a 1300 is someone who has just learned how the pieces move.

a 2700 is a contender for world championship.

in fact, the odds of a 1300 beating a 2000 are almost ZERO.

a 2700 knows all the latest theory and has in fact come up with several new novelties in which he has beaten many GMs with it.

a 1300 falls for forks and pins regularly and in fact cannot figure out endgames with two pawns correctly. he cannot analyze variations AT ALL.

his best is that he can figure out how to mate with a queen against a lone king and in fact he can never win in Q vs R+P.

a 2700 can checkmate with bishop and knight blindfolded.

also, a 2700 can probably beat 30 1300s simultaneously blindfolded.

without blindfold, a 2700 can beat probably unlimited number of 1300s simultaneously.

the worsst part is that a 1300 knows NOTHING about piece positioning or even the CONCEPT of active play. he looks at material only and he knows no combinations. whereas a 2700 can beat GMs with positional exchange sacrifices. spassky beat some GM with a king's gambit. in normal one on one between a 1300 vs a 2700, the 2700 can probably play without a queen and beat the 1300.

even if the 1300 was given a simple endgame against a 2700 with three pawns a piece, the 1300 would certainly lose. of course in three pawn endgames a 2700 might as well be a machine. and there is a great chance that the 1300 will make at least five or six BLUNDERS and probably 95% of his moves will be inaccuracies.

increase the pawns to 5 or 6 a piece and the 1300 is dead lost.

add a knight and it's not a real contest.

add two knights and there is no reason to doubt the result.

add a bishop or queen and so on.

another modification of the statement is that a 1300 will lose against a 2000 with four pawns a piece constantly even IF he has read several endgame books.

That's 1/(Legal Moves + Illegal Moves + Throwing Pieces + Throwing Board + Ignoring chess)

This is by far the best answer I've seen on this increasingly ridiculous thread. Now please, for the love of god, PLEASE let it die!

No way! That's impossible. 

Try a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of winning.

I blundered away a piece against a 1300 in a recent tournament. This 1300 was no underrated child, but an experienced tournament player one year my senior. He lost, and my rating is under 2000. That's how awful 1300s play. If a 2700 blundered away a piece to me (extremely unlikely), I would be lucky to get a draw. That's the difference between 1900s and the TOP FIFTY PLAYERS IN THE WORLD.

I get what you're saying, but honestly, you're wrong.

It's not an "extremely low chance". Extremely low chance would be 1 in 100,000. Or "pretty much impossible" would be 1 in 1,000,000,000.

When the chance is 1 in a number with 52 figures this chance does not exist. Our brain can't even comprehend such a number. It does not exist in the real world. It's just an abstract mathematical concept, like irrational numbers or negative numbers. They exist in math books, but they do not exist in reality.

If you don't believe me, acquaint yourself with the concept of GUID. In computer science they decided that a random number out of a 36 figures number of possibilities is unique enough.

Of course we're talking about exponents here, so ^52 is incomprehensibly bigger than ^36.