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

But you already distilled the correctness of what he said by figuring out what he meant. So it's all about, what distilling will actually help the discussion to any decent degree. We could correct tiny grammatical mistakes too, which would slightly help clarity, but the cost of pointing it out would probably outweigh the benefits.

"I'll warn you in advance that we are no longer arguing because it has been resolved in my favour."

I think you just didn't know what "controlling for free time" actually meant.

"Ah, I see. So in an argument, about a relevant detail.. my pointing out that a statement was actually not strictly true... is the equivalent to dropping a random fact about bananas. 

You really are complete fucked in the head aren't you? Like this is seriously how you think?"

No, not completely equivalent. It's just meant, like analogies are, to show what can happen when you apply a certain concept to a certain point. Of course it's not exact, but it's supposed to give you some idea of what I'm talking about, which it did. Not crazy at all.

Was it really that relevant? Would it have been hard to further the discussion without that point? I personally say no, frankly, but perhaps that's another point of disagreement :) We can raise a new thread for that one perhaps :)

But it pretty clearly showed the idea of relevance. Even if it took it to a very different degree.

But I wasn't saying stupid things in the first place, so your statement doesn't make much sense.

Hmm. So you're saying I can't be an NM because you need intelligence to be one, yet if you go one class lower, expert, suddenly you don't need much intelligence to be one? I might be misunderstanding you but you seem to be running into some strange inconsistencies in your argument.

I wouldn't call them opposites, but like I said, that's a whole other debate I guess :)

"Yeh I'm just trying to insult you."

Ah, saying something stupid while calling someone stupid. Just remember that you want to take your time before insulting someone's intelligence, since it'll look really ironic if you do something stupid while doing so :)

I think the chances of a 1300 beating a 2700 assuming they are focusing is 1 in 1 novemnonagintillion or really really really really really low

One thing you have to consider is mouse slips. Probably the faster the time control the more chances this has of happening. It would probably take a REALLY bad one or multiple.

Blackavar, your opinions/conclusions don't have any real evidence backing them yet you point to them as proof of your argument. For example "give a 5 year old a 25 year Olds brain and he will improve faster than a normal 5 year old. This directly disputes the child learning faster theory"(this is paraphrased from your posts). How exactly does it dispute it? Do you have proof of this? Did it actually happen somewhere with significant results? I assume not, so I can just as easily say give a 25 year old a 5 year Olds brain and he will improve faster than he would otherwise. That directly disputes your dispute. Argument over, right?

Also regarding players starting late who went on to become GM, there isn't any that I can think of. The closest thing would be blackburne who started at 18 and went on to become one of the world's best players. But that was long before they had GM titles.

There are a 1000+ GM'S world wide. What age is starting late. 20? I am willing to wager more than a few started after 16 and most decidedly after 20.

i timed out a 2300 last week and allowed the draw to be a gentleman i had 7 mins he had like 5 seconds with no pieces taken in a closed position. if it wasnt a simul i would have gobbled the points but it was a simul and everyone else was point gobbling him so i took the hi road. then he refused my draw the next game.

Point gobbling? Are simuls rated?

There's an IM who started at 14 but didn't play seriously until 17. And blackburne started at 18 and became a top player in the world. But that was before GM titles.

I'm not sure it was on lichess. I wouldn't no. i just assumed so why else would they all want the win so bad? not like they can say it was fair if symul 

Good question. I wonder what the average starting age for GMs is. I'd guess below age 10 on average.

It would be difficult to get correct numbers though (just asking someone is not good enough to be sure).

You can go here and see the birthdates of the GM title applicants:

https://ratings.fide.com/title_applications.phtml

I'd say the average age of the applicants having looking at 5-6 meetings is 20-25.  There are examples of people in their 30s+ being awarded a title.

Theoretically, it could be possible. If the 1300 is a genius, a Magnus Carlsen, but  he never plays rated games, the 2700 could be taken aback.