Ah, that's easy - 2300. Definitely.
... although:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nYwTWycVSM
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1606556
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
In chess anything is possible. When I was 11 years old I played chess against the US Checkers champion in a simultaneous chess and checker exhibition and I beat him. I was small for my age so I guess he wasn't paying any attention to me. The moral of the story is the tortoise can triumph over the hare if the hare falls asleep.
Did he actually play chess? I could probably beat Lionel Messi or Tiger Woods in a game of chess.
yea sure ! the 14/1500 points gap has little to do w/ experience and knowledge . the ability to 'see' the board and position will fail, and of course a "hung" queen will occur...being a gentlemen he will RESIGN- yea sure! a better shot is a medical condition and time runs out..
@Tmb86, I was thinking 2200 if the 2700 is having a really bad day. But maybe you're right - 2300 is lower-end master level.
In any case, a lot higher than 1300 
Any other answers?
Estragon wrote:
erikido23 wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
I think one of the real problems with this is that a GM can see much further than a 1300, which is why they make better positional moves. The 1300 could even make a move that looks perfect but the GM can quickly see a 13 turn tactic that destroys them.
I think the easiest answer is to say that the 1300 has a chance to beat the GM but its implausible. Sure, the GM could die a few turns into it, or the 1300 could be Bobby Fischer who never played a rated game since getting to 1300. Maybe the 1300 is a hustler who purposely keeps their rating low. Maybe the GM is the hustler who purposely loses the first game and then bets a huge sum of money on the second? Oh, maybe the 1300 is a super intelligent alien chess genius and it's their first chess game?
I think one of the problems is that the gm sees much farther than the amateur, understands positional chess much better, doesn't blunder near as much and the blunders are of a much more "minor" nature, knows the basic mating patterns, knows basic endgames, knows typical middlegame plans, and understands what good and bad pieces are, knows what good and bad pawn structures are and how they relate to the pieces are...But, that is just about it.
Agreed, and add to that the inability of the 1300 to effectively capitalize on any mistakes the 2700 did make along the way.
Remember, ratings measure results, not "strength." The maximum deviation of 350-400 points is the outer limit of probability for any result other than the higher rated player wins.
That's not based on some theoretical supposition, it's a statistical fact. Beyond that rating difference - assuming as we must that both ratings are reasonably accurate - the chance of the lower rated player not losing approaches zero. The only reason it isn't actually zero is due more to mathematical theory than chess practice.
The reason they won't be able to take advantage is all of the things I listed (and probably a few other I left out)
The 1300 will not play certain moves that can be winning because he thinks they are losing, therefore can't luck and win.
Imagine the rating boost!
I agree that the rating system doesn't prove anything for this question in terms of possibility; the real reason I believe there is a chance is due to the points that I made a few pages ago, which I still stand by.
2300 isn't 'lowest' master level - it's actually above average master level.
Why?
When you make 2300, you get the master (FM) title. Right?
From there on, suppose you were really 2300 strength at that point, the chances are 50% that your rating goes up, 50% that it goes down.
So - the 50% whose ratings go down (maybe they weren't really WORTH 2300 but just had a rating 'peak' there, and actually their strength is, say, 2262), REMAIN FMs.
The 50% who were underrated and are actually stronger - go up. Some of them become IMs and drop out of the FM pool!
So - we have 50% covering ratings 2299 and lower, and under 50% covering ratings of 2300 up to around 2400 and not much more, as these will no longer be FMs - but IMs and up.
Hence, 2300 is at least average FM strength. Anything above that figure means that the guy is a 'strong' FM.
Yeah ok point taken, you know what I meant, I meant base level for achieving a title. Hell, I've come across titled players rated lower than me before.
<Clavier Cavalier> I like your creative and imaginative ideas as to how a 1300 vs. 2700 wins are possible!
BTW, did you notice that my video channel houses around 100 different videos? The Rhapsody in Blue is just the one that features as you enter (although personally I like it MORE than the orchestrated version - as the pianist needs also to be the orchestra... more imagination and ability are necessary to provide a strong interpretation when you're on your own).
I don't know how you managed to make 2109 in live bullet (I struggle to climb and stay on top of 1700) - but it looks like you shouldn't be too far from becoming titled yourself.
Hmm... my real-life rating is 2043. By your quite reasonable argument, I need to double in strength to reach 2143. Which is still nowhere near master standard. I suck, don't rub it in 
madhacker wrote:
Hmm... my real-life rating is 2043. By your quite reasonable argument, I need to double in strength to reach 2143. Which is still nowhere near master standard. I suck, don't rub it in
Try being a 1300 (I'm unrated, but if I had to take a guess, I'd say that is what I am). I still beat 99% of my RL friends. All social, of course. This gives the little 1300 a small ego boost, and he goes to an online chess site and gets his ass whooped. Now, take that for being sucky. How about it?
All is relative... but improvement is God!!
And to Madhacker - would love to play some blitz with you (I'm too slow for 1-minute bullet) and discuss some chess - I get a feeling that this could be interesting...
beck15 wrote:
madhacker wrote:
Hmm... my real-life rating is 2043. By your quite reasonable argument, I need to double in strength to reach 2143. Which is still nowhere near master standard. I suck, don't rub it in
Try being a 1300 (I'm unrated, but if I had to take a guess, I'd say that is what I am). I still beat 99% of my RL friends. All social, of course. This gives the little 1300 a small ego boost, and he goes to an online chess site and gets his ass whooped. Now, take that for being sucky. How about it?
There is always someone better my friend. Always...
madhacker wrote:
Okay, so here's an extension question. What rating *would* you need to be to have a cat's chance in hell against a 2700 GM in a one-off game?
I think on a good day, you can play 200 pts. above your rating, and conversely, on a bad day, someone can play 200 pts. under his rating. So my guess would be 400 pts. as the largest gap for an upset to occur.
Okay, so here's an extension question. What rating *would* you need to be to have a cat's chance in hell against a 2700 GM in a one-off game?