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

Well, according to the Elo system a 200 points lower player has 25% odds of winning. Here it is 1400 points. The math is simple: 0.25⁷≈0.00006 or 0.006 %. However, I think this math won't work because when you have such a huge difference it will be further augmented by these 1400 points. So much so that the odds are less than one out millions (or something of that magnitude) under standard time control. This 0.006% (1 win out of 60.000) may only work in bullet, I guess, where a strong GM might still blunder. However, a low Elo player must be no slowpoke in bullet or he/she won't convert even a serious blunder against a GM. All this math and reasoning will collapse and be no longer valid if you pair a 1300 Elo player with a 2500 engine. A human 1300 will stand a chance of probably less than one out of a billion!!! And of course even less than that in a bullet game against an engine

This math must also be no good because if they play so many games a 1300 player will learn a lot along the way, improving his/her Elo rating

Funny thing is a 1300 Elo player stands no chance against a 2700 GM even if that GM has only one minute per game and a 1300 player has as much time as he/she wants! That's because the GM will also compute and evaluate positions while a 1300 player is thinking. Even if a 2700 player plays blindfolded, a 1300 stands no chance

As far as the theory of probability goes, it's interesting to calculate a ballpark figure of what odds are that a 1300 player will beat a 2700 Elo engine in a bullet game? It's mind boggling.  Don't know how to evaluate that probability   Only meaningless guesses come to mind with meaningless numbers like10^-1000 or 10^-1000000.  Such nonsense

Truth be told, a ballpark figure of the odds that a 1300 player will beat a 2700 Elo engine in a bullet game are not mind boggling. Only extremely approximate numbers are possible to obtain here but still possible and even easy

Assume the probability of a good move that a 1300 makes (if all moves are like that) that can eventually win against a 2700 Elo engine is 0.05. Then assume you have to make 80 such moves to win against a 2700 Elo engine (the engine defenses ferociously extending the game to many moves e.g. Fritz 6 against Fritz 11. That's why we assume 80 moves). The probability (extremely approximate number) is 0.05⁸⁰ = 8x10^-105

No big deal even here. We can still make rough estimates. The margin of error is huge here, the probability can be 10^-90 or it can be 10^-120. So the estimates are not very good. However the probability cannot  be as low as 10^-1000

True

No, or it wouldn't be a desert. The chances of people actually answering this are HIGH.

Obviously, blunders can happen.  Otherwise, it becomes similar to letting a monkey type on a keyboard long enough and he'll write Romeo and Juliet.  The odds are minuscule for the 1300 player.

Dont compare the 1300 fides with monkeys. We are much stronger than that, and the biggest difference between us and the 2200s is consistency. We do  play several games with caps-precicion score above 98,and also several games scoring below 80. Only very, very good players can beat us in our best games, but in our worst we can be taken down by much weaker players.

Scoring 98% caps in a game does not only mean we are in a great shape, it also means the position was not too hard.

But yeah, I agree even a 700 rated players know the rules and more or less what he is doing, so not even close to the assumptions on typing moonkeys. The idea remains the same though, it would require a huge number of tries, just a much smaller huge, one probably conceivible in a lifetime (although there are the chances that you don't stay at 1300 if you keep trying for a lifetime)

When we play above 98 , the position usually is easy to play for us, and very difficult for our opponents. Typical for players on my level is that we are our owns worst enemies. When playing fantastic, everybody will have difficulties against us, and when playing worse we can lose to anyone. The pity is that the fantastic games are quite rare. In most games there are mistakes and inaccuracies.  I often am steering my games, and often steering them into the ditch.

Is Roger federer a 2700 rated player?

If 1300 is white and 2700 is black then 1300 should play 1. E4 e5 2. Qh5

Then 1300 should ask 2700 if he  a booger under his king.  The 2700 will pick his king and look.  But 2700 forgot to say "i adjust"  and so he has to Ke7.  And then 1300 plays Qxe5

Why no 2700 yet from Africa

This thread has to stop. 2700 isn't just a numner, it's a level of skill that is like saying can my 14 year old daughter beat Tiger Woods in a round of golf. It's not going to happen. So let's just stop. 

Thanks for for all the entertaining comments... later

Facts remain there is no elo rating in tennis, and roger federer is not rated 2700, or 3000 for what matters, so the question was specific enough to rule tennis players out (unless they happen to also be chess GMs or something), although not neceesarilly tennis.

Federer will still beat the world's best tennis robot so he must be 3300+

This thread will decide when it stops.

It achieved self awareness with post #5106.

Thers a big differnce between golf and chess. 14 year old girls does have the same piecemoves available as th grandmaster. 14 year old girls does not hit the ball as long as Tiger Woods. 14 year old girls easily can move the bishop as far as Magnus Carlsen. I luckily did beat  a nine year old girl rated 1366 on thursday. She is the sister of a Norway Gnome, and has exactly the same talent. Give her a year, and she will become very dangerous to grandmasters. Beware of the cute small girls. In their supertactical brains huge danger is luring.

the 1300 can win a blitz game if the 2700 makes an illegal move