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

Assuming the 2700 isn't intentionally forfeiting the game or dying during the game as some people have morbidly pointed out, I see a couple improbably but theoretically possible ways this could happen.

The most likely scenario is that the 2700 accidentally touches an important piece (king or queen) without saying "adjust" (for whatever reason, probably on accident) -- the 1300 calls him out on it and TD says the 2700 must move the piece which ends up being a fatal move (e.g. loses the queen, king's only legal move causes him to move into a mate in 2 net).

Another possibility is that the 2700 has an external (non-chess) cause which makes him eat up a large portion of his clock. For example, playing a G/45 action tournament but suddenly has diarrhea and wastes like 30-35 minutes using the bathroom. He figures he can take out the 1300 with less than 10 minutes and goes to poop his brains out while he leaves his clock running. When the 2700 returns the 1300 happens to play some of the best chess he's ever played in a complex position and forces the 2700 to get into even more severe time trouble and simply overlooks a semi-difficult tactic which the 1300 luckily happens to find with all the time on his clock. The 1300 wins significant material (maybe 2 pieces or a rook) where even he knows just to trade off as much as possible and the 2700 simply doesn't have time to figure out how to overcome the deficit.

Or the 2700 has some deeply disturbing issues (e.g. wife just divorced him, child just dies, mom overdosed on heroin, etc). He decides to play some chess to keep his mind off his personal problems, but the plan backfires and he finds that he cannot stop being negative and his chess ability suffers greatly. The distractions are so bad that he ends up blundering multiple times and loses.

Bottom line: Yes, there is a chance. Is it likely? Hell no. Might not even happen in our lifetimes, but theoretically it is possible.

+1 for misterbasic 

easy...just drop a NZT-48 pill 5 minutes before the game and you'll be right...however, you better read all you can on opening, middle game and end game theory...apparently this helps.

What exactly is the point of even discussing what if this happened, what if that happened ??

Geez. I could make up a 1000 such examples. You could all argue about the feasibility of a specific case. All such talk is usekess.

The real question- Does a 1300 posses the skill set to win the game, specifically after a GM blunders such as Gelfand did in the original question/ the example given.

Too funny these scenarios, runaway imaginations.

Romantics dreaming of one day winning.

"For example, playing a G/45 action tournament but suddenly has diarrhea and wastes like 30-35 minutes using the bathroom."

This is a 1st, and possibly the most pathetic.

If a 1300 player wants a chance of occasionally beating a 2700 player in a real competitive game then they need to improve their chess to somewhere around the 2400 level !  It is a bit like someone that runs 10,000 metres in about 1 hour planning to beat Mo Farrar  in a race (or any other International 10k runner, as they can all run comfortably well below 30 minutes without trying very hard).

For the average person going from 1300 to 2400 strength would take something like 10 to 15 years of sustained study  for several hours on most days, and lots of practice in competitive play ... with the possibility (or rather ... probability ... when you consider how many of us play chess, and how few of us become masters)  that they will never reach their goal. 

A good teacher or mentor improves the prospects ... especially if you find one before developing lots of misconceptions about chess and bad habits of thought.

yes

but a 1300 rated player at russian roulette probably gets the bullet more times than the 2700 rated russian roulette player.

so to answer the question, then i would say a 1300 rated could not beat a 2700 player because the person would get the bullet more times.  and thus not be able to survive as long as the 2700 player

Even then the GM could probably find a way to get some material for the Queen and go on to win.  I say this as a player who, at his peak strength in the 1980s's (BCF rating 190-something, equivalent to Elo in the 2100's) took part in a handicap tournament. The handicap varied from P+move, through QN, QR to a whole Queen, depending on the rating difference of the players.

In one round I played someone with the BCF rating of 90 which is approximately 1300 Elo, and had to give a whole Queen.  I fully expected to lose.  At every move I would look at the board and think "If he goes there I resign".  Amazingly he never saw his opportunities, gradually dropped material through blunders, and lost in the end.

Now, at 2150-ish I was strong enough to give a 1300-rated player a real fight in a slow OTB Game at Queen odds.  Yet a 2700-rated player would have annihilated me in any straight competitive game.

A problem is that a 1300 player has NO IDEA just how strong 2700 is.  It is like sub-10s 100m, or 6 Dan in ju-jitsu, or being in with a chance of winning a Tennis Grand slam.

Next we hear:

Or the 2700 has some deeply disturbing issues (e.g. wife just divorced him, child just dies, mom overdosed on heroin, etc).

Leaving out the most obvious a 2700 professional chess player (there are 40) will fall victim to.

Mind control

The 1300 has acquired psychic powers enabling him to interfere with the chess calculating abilities of the 2700, rendering his level of play to less than 1000.

A famous game took place between a young Capablanca (assuredly was above 1300) and the Champion of Cuba (a very strong player but not close to 2700 strength).

Queen odds were given to Capa. He achieved a draw, a remarkable achievement. The Cuban predicted Capa one day would be WC.

greenibex wrote:

chessking1976 wrote:

greenibex wrote:

are we talking about beating someone at chess or

something else like russian roulette?

Chess. Russian roulette odds are just 1/6, yes?

yes

but a 1300 rated player at russian roulette probably gets the bullet more times than the 2700 rated russian roulette player.

so to answer the question, then i would say a 1300 rated could not beat a 2700 player because the person would get the bullet more times.  and thus not be able to survive as long as the 2700 player

Most compelling argument thus far.

Most likely scenario for a loss would be a time loss when he thinks there is a secondary time control and there isn't.  Think that happened a few months ago, did it not?

Time control is a factor, yes. For example, Magnus Carlsen lost a very good game against Topalov due time. However, the question is even if that happens, would a 1300 survive until 2700 loses on time? That means 1300 should survive at least 40 moves which is roughly 0.245% chance by my calculations and 0.0125% chance by calculations of another good person here in this forum. And please be reminded that this is given the 2700 will lose on time if it comes to that. Chances of that happening is also slim.

thank you

discuss among yourselves

I don't really get people discounting scenarios where gm plays a poor game. You are basically arguing 2700 is a bigger number than 1300. Gm's do occasionally play below their rating, sometimes they play big blunders. Can a 1300 take advantage? Chances are very very tiny, but not nil. People win the lottery don't they?

Topalov -Carlsen 1-0 in Norway Chess was exactly that game Carlsen lost because there were new timecontrolrules, and Carlsen hadnt learnt them. 

See? You have a blithering criticism of opposing positions yourself -- I just took one example of many just on the last page. So it's strange to hear you complain about it to me.

You think "if you believe it, any of your dreams can come true" kind of crap isn't a strawman of my position? I make logical arguments and you, often, take it to mean that I will be optimistic of something no matter what the probability, and that I don't live in the real world or something.

I know you're gonna say "don't put words in my mouth" mdinnerspace, so I'll even give a quote of what you recently said on page 247:

"Romantics dreaming of one day winning."

Exactly the kind of strawman crap I'm talking about.

I have been on that track. One day I did beat a player rated 100 above, because I belived I was better , and I knew he feared me from previous loss. He got a bit passive and I punished him hard.

Another day I met a player  rated 300 above me.  I thought that 300+ is to little. It should be great winningchances. I was high on superselfconfidence. My problem was that I underestimated him, got to offensive, got punished and lost.

Its good to believe, but if you belive too much, it can backfire.