2200 vs 2700

Thanks, Rumo. As far as the Larsen quote is concerned, I'm quoting from memory and I'm quite sure I read it somewhere in a lesser-known but excellent book 'How to Open a Chess Game' (RHM Press 1974). I'll look into it. Just another point on the question of a weaker player's chances against a much stronger opponent (and bearing in mind this 45 out of 50 vs 5 out of 50 theory). Especially nowadays, with extensive databases, a well-prepared weaker player who can lure his much stronger opponent into a line he has studied very well, stands an excellent chance of at least drawing the game, which for the much stronger player is a kind of defeat, of course. Besides, the Bundesliga competition has proved on many occasions, that 2200 and certainly 2300 players may pose a formidable challenge even to super GMs. Hence I feel sure the best way for the much stronger player to defeat weaker opposition is to take risks, perhaps even playing an inferior line, to get their opponent out of their preparation and force both sides to think with their own heads. Interestingly, in the Belgian team competition players have to be lined up in accordance with their rating, which makes it much easier to prepare. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, the line-up can be completely arbitrary, making preparations more difficult.

i would feel i'd have no chance,but myself i hope to be 2700 in the foreseeable future

In terms of chess understanding how is a 2500 different from a 2200?   The usual.chess games last 40 moves so what.does  the 2500 see in such a short series of moves?