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

What? You most certainly can.

You could nail the 2700 players hands to the table and he'd still win. 

Stick fly paper to the seat, a gag over his mouth, nail the feet too. Let's put a sack over his head and place headphones playing justin beeber inside.

All in. The 1300 loses.

If forced to listen to Justin Beeber, the 2700 may lose.

Maybe so.

My 1st good laugh of the day

I cab beat a 2700 player with pawn odds.

No. Not Justin Bieber. Everything else, sure, but that's a bit too much, even for a 2700.

Infinite monkeys is a stupid formulation. Infinite series of random letters is more to the point. An infinite string of random letters would contain every combination. This not only includes what's been written, but anything that will ever be written.

More interesting is that humans don't play randomly. So it's possible even after infinite games that none of them will be a non-loss for the weaker player.

About that randomness. Strong human players (1300 Fide) do often play perfect 50 % of the moves. That gives a very much better chance than total randomness. I dont know how many legal moves  there are each time, but its certainly a lot more than two.

Those who doesnt regard 1300 as strong, because they are outshadowed by 2700 supermonsters, should try to play those kids in an otb -tournament.

Of course they will lose against the 2700, but not necessarily if the very tired 2700 makes a big enough blunder. A 1265 (Andreas Røberg Beitnes) does play on 2000 level in huge parts of the game.

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

I will let you know, I will play a WGM tomorrow! :)

The typical 1300 is usually very variable in strenght. He or she is probably ca 10 years old, and skyrocketing towards masterlevel. 1300 is only a stop on the track. Not even a stop.  I will run my game with Andreas R Beitnes through a computer, and see if its true that at least 50% of his moves were perfect. He was unlucky in the opening, got a heavy but inaccurate attack against himself,  defended with the finest precision and saved the draw.

I remember when I played Isak Sjøberg, when he was back at that strenght a couple of years ago. He is ca 2000 today. I already then could feel his terrible calculating strenght (he is the son of a professor in mathemathics). 

You probably will beat Andreas 6 out of 8 games, get one draw and one loss, if you meet him now. In the autumn it will be a different story, but if he plays some tournaments in the summer he will get higher rating.

To assume that a 1300 has an accurate rating is very often inaccurate.

Good moves don't help your position though, they only maintain. I don't think % of good moves is a relevant metric as you can make 99 perfect moves and lose on move 100, I think rate of errors is what counts.

And if a player makes a game losing error at least once a game, (in part due to their knowledge and skill) then it's possible that total randomness gives a better chance.

Other than using baseless assumptions it's also totally off topic.

It shouldn't have to be pointed out once a month for years that the topic isn't about an underrated 1300 or a drunk 2700 or a sandbagging 1300 or a 2700 who doesn't take the game seriously etc.

I live in a  Norway. In  Norway the 1300s usually are underated kids. That is what i experience in every otb tournament I play. Half a year later they are not 1300 anymore. The C-class is full of kids. Maybe the rest of the world is different. I dont know. In Norway the 1300s are very strong, but they lack knowledge of some openings, and are good at others. They are much , much better than 1600s at calculating, and plays sharper. One of the below 1300 outplayed the leader in my group in the clubchampionship, blundered and lost. A couple of weeks later he outplayed a 1473 and won.There are three ten year old kids in my group that is unrated or rated below 1300. Maybe they all will get 1300 the first of may, a rating based on the clubchampionship. There is only one adult rated on the 13 houndreds in my group, but he too has childish improvement, playing on his fourth year.

Assuming that a 1300 isnt underated is very, very far from my reality. Many adult players doesnt realize that, because they play one or two classes up, and are sheltered from those 1300s, and suddendly they meet a kid in an open Swiss tournament, and they get struck by something incredible strong.

A 1300 Fide usually is a lot more intelligent and some decades younger,  than a 1600. The 1600 is  often an adult that has stabilized or maybe is on the way down.  

I checked a 1300 I met in the autumn (draw, Bjørn Magnus Bø). He has an average raise of 12.64 ratingpoints pr game, and is officially at 1494 now. His endgamtechique already at 1300 was beautiful. In that tournament (Sandefjord grand prix) I met four kids and one adult. The kids were lowrated, and more intelligent. I lost to the lowest rated kid, drew Bjørn Magnus and won the rest.

You that believes that 1300 isnt generally underated kids have not played much otb-toutnaments on that level in Norway.

A very little girl I met in Sandefjord was born in 2008. She hasnt got Fiderating yet, and when it comes (in May?) it can land on 1300. she did beat GM Simen Agdestein in a simultan in 2015, and Simen claims that she is better than Magnus was at that age.

You call it crap, is crap the definition of truth?

Norway isnt Canada. The chesskids here are brutally strong and superintelligent, but their rating is far beyond their current performance, because it is calculated from previous games.

Rating is only accurate for players that has stabilized on a level. 1600 is a level where there are a higher percentage of stabilized players.

An underrated kid has a chance against a 2700 if and only if that underrated kid is a FIDE Master.

(unless the 2700 is forced to listen to Justin Beeber, of course)

There are maybe... 15 kids (ages 8 to 13) in the club where I frequently play. I think the lowest rated one is about 1500. At this age, in my experience, they're pretty bad at everything but tactics, which they seem to be able to preform 200-300 points above their rating.

Which doesn't really matter in my games because I don't let it get super sharp, so 9 times out of 10 I can keep up in the game. But in the analysis I can't keep up with the tactics which they can see really fast.

Anyway, I've heard it's safe to pretend kids are 200 points underrated because they improve so quickly. If you want to do this, that's fine, it's not impractical. But then for this conversation we'll have to assume it's an 1100 rated kid (because +200 = 1300).