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

You think a super GM can't afford a huge blunder against an amateur and still win?

true, and  the difference between a 2700 nd a 2200 is much larger then between the 2200 and the1400.

Some 2700 are easier to beat than others. Against Giri the winningchances is  minimum, regardless of rating. But the drawingchances are higher against Giri, than it is against the ther top ten. He doesnt put the pieces dangerously. Topalov can easyier get beaten, because he now and then does something strange. 

Easier to beat for whom? Another top player? Because class players would all be beaten handily by those guys and the games would likely look almost identical.

Absolutely!

Every 2650+ could beat every poster to this thread in a simul while drunk and blindfolded.

Such a message is useful to others who are reading. The posters who do not understand WILL NOT understand. That's a given, sorta like the expectation that FAUX viewers could be convinced to consider evidence based reasoning. It ain't gonna happen. But, the lurkers might be persuaded. 

Bungas account is 2 days old.

His 1st thread is searching for a chess clock that would allow him to cheat.

Won't take somebody long to recognize his previous username.

Where you banned for abuse or cheating? I see you've won every game played thus far.

A reciepe for 1300 beating 2700. First  a lot of cash is needed, and also perfect memory, then you hire some super-GMs to make some fantastic preparations, and remember them accurately. If maximum luck the 2700 doesnt step outside the line and goes down to that trap. I dont know if its possible, but there were a prepvictory in Fagernes chess international, where a 2400 did beat a 2300 WGM, only moving as prepped. That 2400 of course were good enough to win even if his opponent went out of line, but he risked something, and sacrified a lot material.

The chance of the GM walking on that tiny path you have prepped is of course very, very smal, but it is larger than absolute zero.

A problem is that the 2700 senses that it is a prep, and slides away from the line. Magnus usually slides out of the mainline.

Why is this thread still going?

When you quote something, you should read it first. You comment reveals absolute failure to comprehend my comment.

I'll spell it out: WHEN I REPLY TO YOU WHO ARE IGNORANT, I AM SPEAKING TO OTHERS WHO ARE NOT.

Ziryab writes:

I'll spell it out: WHEN I REPLY TO YOU WHO ARE IGNORANT, I AM SPEAKING TO OTHERS WHO ARE NOT.

OK to quote you when I encounter knuckleheads?

My comments will never convince anyone, inclined to fantasize of playing and winning Giri, that hope is an illusion.

Beating on a dead horse.

I debate those that offer a 'mathematical possibility.'

I claim this logic is inheritently faulty

yes

The math conclusion is 100% sound. It is the assumptions you have to make in order to apply it which are unrealistic.

If it helps.

Can't argue with numbers, equations and sound mathematical proofs.

The assumptions made (as Colin 20 points out) might be unrealistic. A view similiar (?) to my own and not often expressed, at least here.

You guys are bored today.

No, it's obnoxious, lol. If his comments actually persuade people, I guess those people are to blame for allowing themselves to be so easily persuaded.

I think I'd have a chance. Blind simuls are pretty darn tough.

What do you mean by that, though? I mean, we clearly know we're not going to get an infinite amount of monkeys, etc, but the idea is that if we did, then somewhere in the infinite process we should see Shakespeare.

And likewise we could make an infinite 1300 vs 2700 theorem.