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

No.

I guess the kid is chanceless 9999 times of 10000. A underrated 1300 kid plays at maybe 1900 in his best games, and that strenght might be enough the day the 2700 blunders very bad. Every chessplayers know that the opponents blunder is his chance, and chances happens, even the top 40 can have a bad minute. Usually the 2700s can recover from their blunders, and usually they are standing so well on the board that the blunders doesnt ruin everything. Usually, but not necessarily always.

Are the 1300 good enough to see and punish the blunders?  I think the 1300s I have met are good enough.

When a WGM beats a 2700, it is a huge upset.

If the 2700 is disturbed by load Justin Bieber music and gets a sleepless night , he really can blunder bad. Imagine that he plays with his brain in tiredmodus, and rests his hand on the table, near the board, then suddenly fells asleep for  a second , while his hand slides in and makes a disastermove.   I had a similar blunder in livechess here. I fell asleep, my hand slided on the scrollpad and the knight slided to a wrong square and got taken.

You're only looking at it from one side. Ask yourself if the 2700s are good enough to see and punish the 1300s blunders. The game goes both ways you know.

And blunders don't happen in isolation. After a certain level of skill observational blunders (like "oh I didn't notice that piece was there") don't happen anymore. It requires good play to pressure an opponent into making a bad decision.

And even though we can't imagine players much better than 400 points above our rating, your estimation of 2700 players is unexpectedly low to me.

Maybe you don't realize? All 2700 players were promising youths. They were underrated like the kids you've seen... except while the kids you've seen are underrated at 1300, these players were underrated at 2500.

"I beat a higher rated player without relying on a blunder . . ."

"they missed mate in 1"

This topic is full of ridiculous people.

with santa clause as your second, petting your easter bunny mascot beside the board, its absolutely possible

dont stop believing!

99 out of 100 would be more like it, maybe even more. 

Of course my sight is from my side. Of course the 2700s are good enough to see and punish everything. 

Maybe they wont do bad blunders ever, or maybe the will? The possiblity for that they makes the real bad blunder the same day as they meet a superstrong 1300 kid in the first round in an open tournament is so low that it probably never happens. Most superGM -blunders are against other GM´s seconds before the timecontrol.  I realize that the possibilty is something like that I win a million dollar in the lottery the same day as I gets hit by the train and struck twice by lightning.

"The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one they say.

But still they come."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st24-6JQos8

My point in this debate is that 1300s is much stronger than many players believe. On a good day they are better than 1600. Because many of them are superkids, heading for great strenght. I really dont think the  1300s  ever will beat a 2700,

but still they can.

If blitz then everything is possible. If normal - well Tigran Petrosian once lost a queen in a normal game. Without the help of such blunders I think it is nearly impossible. Just think - get a very strong chess program +2700 and put it against a chess player with 1300 ... how many times do you seiously think the program will lose - and that is without the human factor blunder.

They were 300 points worse, but tomorrow is another day. All ratings are old and based on previous games. And Fideratings are not updated instantly such as the ratings on chess.com.Those kids may improve houndreds of points in a half year.

I did check out a couple of 1600´s in my club. They are ca 50 years old and their ratings are dropping. A 1600 back in january might be a 1595 in April.

I remember being 1300. I was probably 1300 for a year. I played other kids and teens rated 1300 during that time too.

1600 was really good. They almost always found a tactics I would miss and they'd win at least a pawn during the game.

1300 is a transitrating, a step on the stairs. The kids that competes otb are the best of the kids, and most of them are stepping on the 1300 bar on their way.

1600 looks different. 1600 isnt only a bar on the ladder . Its a huge plateu were lots of fifty year old men settles for years. But for the kids 1600 is only a step. They wont rest there for long.

The 1300 kids I met are at 1400,1500 1600 and 1900 now. The 1900 is going for GM, and does use a GM as personal trainer.

Why isnt 1300 a huge plateu like 1600? Or why does adults at 1300 not compete much otb? Maybe they gets demoralized, and doesnt get the good winning feeling often enough?

A difference between 1300 kid and 1600 adult is that the kid is training much harder, therefore he is climbing, and therefore he is far stronger than his rating.

There are less kids on 1600 than on 1300, many talents drops out. I have a nephew at 1608. He quit active otb chess at nine or ten.

Sounds like he got his clock cleaned by a few kids and is hyping their strength up all he can. I do believe kids have a much faster rate of improvement than adults, generally speaking. And their ceiling is much higher simply because of their youth. But this "these kids are good enough to beat a 2700 on a good day" is silly. It's kind of like when a 1200 rates player posts he has a "natural ability for tactics" so they don't need to work on those to improve and want to learn openings. If you're rated 1200 you don't have a natural ability for anything. Tactics may be your most noticeable skill, but if you think your tactics are good enough to get by and openings are where you need work at only 1200 you're dreaming.

And the best of the OTB kids win national or international youth championships. Most 2700 players have won titles like this as kids.

Some of them are good enough to beat a 2700 on a good day, IF THE 2700 BLUNDERS BAD ENOUGH. 

Isak Sjøberg looked good enough the first time I met him in the winter of 2014, but he wasnt Fiderated back then. He is 1843 now.

True. Some of the kids I met have national championships in their age-class.

This isn't a question of if the 2700 blunders bad enough. Small mistakes, fine. But the 1300s won't take advantage of little errors. An 1800 likely wouldn't take advantage of little errors. And a 2700 isn't going to outright hang a queen. But even little errors are only going to come from skilled opposition. A 1300 isn't going to pose any real problems to a 2700 that is going to force a mistake.

1900 for a kid is crap? It's not a prodigy or anything (depending on the age) but it's pretty good.

I picked some names at random from http://www.2700chess.com/and looked on wikipedia. Let me know which player you think a 1300 kid "superstar" would have a chance against. By the way, many of these guys had FM, IM, and GM as stepping stones, earning them in consecutive years.

Tomashevsky (2722):
"won the Russian under-10 championship in 1997 and the Russian U18 championship in 2001"

Navara (2737):

"won several world medals in youth categories"

Radjabov (2726):
"the youngest of the participants Radjabov won the European Under 18 Championship"

Gelfand (2740):
"He became European Junior Champion in 1987" (in Arnhem)

Ivanchuk (2710):
"He won the 1987 European Junior Chess Championship" (In Groningen)

Leko (2705):
"World Youth Chess Championship, winning . . . gold in the under-16 in 1994"

Nepomniachtichi (2703):
"won the European Youth Chess Championship three times"

Mamedyarov (2747):
"In 2003 he won the World Junior Chess Championship. He repeated his victory in 2005"

Karjakin (2779):
"In 2001, he won the World Chess U12 championship"

Svidler (2762):
"[won] the under-18 section of the World Youth Championship in Szeged"