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

There are 3 types of "child prodigies" or "savants"... math , music and chess. The term is reserved for a select few, maybe 1 or two every generation. There are a few chess players around age 10 close to GM. Youngest to achieve GM is 12. Some would claim a few "may be" savants, but the question is open. Capablanca is an example. Claims are made Fischer and Kasparov were prodigies, but no definitive answer. Research the term, you will find it is reserved for the select few. It does get thrown about quite freely, people thinking any higher than average qualifies as a prodigy, but this is simply incorrect.

The phenomenon has been observed in recent years to be exponentially increasing, with a higher rate of savants being born. They reguire little instruction, at very early ages quickly master music, chess and math. But of course, study and guidance is necessary to achieve the highest result.

Asinus asinum fricat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmaster_%28chess%29

have a good read, it's under current regulations

The ranking is based on previous results. Old stuff. Her first ok tournament was this spring. Its this autumn she really starts to shine.

Thanks, its obvious that I have misunderstood "prodigy" a lot.  That narrows it down to Anand, Karjakin, Carlsen, Ding Liren and a few more. There are no Carlsenlike talents that is  visible to me in Norway now. 

In psychology research literature, the term child prodigy is defined as person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer. Child prodigies are rare, and in some domains, there are no child prodigies at all. Prodigiousness in childhood does not always predict adult eminence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_grandmasters

Take a look.

It was in response to djonni's idea that a 1300 is maybe more like a 2000 but for some strange reason has barely played in tournaments. I'm saying, even if it was, say, an "overrated" 1300, it still stands that he can possibly beat the 2700.

You should say "underrated", since the actual rating of that 1300 should be higher. Also, it's totally possible here in Chess.com. If we exclude cheating, some very good guy/girl may do sandbagging if I remember the term correctly. This means one 2700 guy/girl loses so many games, drops to 1300, plays a game against another 2700, wins and his/her rating skyrockets.

Sandbagging is very seldom happening in Scandinavia in Fiderated tournaments, but there are rumours about one old strong man that drops himself one class down to win blitztournament-prizemoney. I guess some hustlers might do it around the world.

Most of the heavily underrated 1300s are players that improves fast, many of them kids and good players from the internet, that recently has started otb-competing.

Most terrifying are the small kids. Some kids struggle with 1000 level for some time, but then, - boom- in the next tournament they might beat 1700s.

I was specifically responding to djonni, though, because he was talking about different kinds of 1300s, rather than "actual" 1300s.

This is an analogy, but how did this man acomplish this being gaunt and aged? I'd read about this 20 years ago. It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's an ordinary human being who knows limitations of potential are only imagined.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Zi-Ping

1550 rated bullet player which might be around 1300 in slow chess stealed 1 game out of me (2000+  bullet player ~1700-1800 fide) in total of 21 games played non-stop. He scored 1 win. And that was last game - i played really badly i feeled a bit sorry for him and gave him a chance to checkmate me... All other games i won positionally, not just time wins.

Well, that's what's been discussed in these 255 pages.

I agree that it's absurd, but that doesn't make it impossible.

Are you asking why would we expect it to happen or why would it happen?

Expecting it to happen is absurd, but there's no physical law that makes the event impossible.

No.I addressed the person who suggested the 2700 would intentionally lose games, sandbag to 1300 then beat a 2700, thus making up a whole new, absurd, scenario where the question becomes possible.

RetiFan wrote:

You should say "underrated", since the actual rating of that 1300 should be higher. Also, it's totally possible here in Chess.com. If we exclude cheating, some very good guy/girl may do sandbagging if I remember the term correctly. This means one 2700 guy/girl loses so many games, drops to 1300, plays a game against another 2700, wins and his/her rating skyrockets.

The "made up" hypothetical scenarious keep getting better. Maybe because we're running out of them?