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

It's been a while since I posted on this thread. Had a change of thinking so here goes my input.
to me it's like yes it can happen, on the scoresheet.
1. "Can" is a permissive word.
2. If a 1300 beats a 2700 is it still a game of chess, or is it a game of who had a heart attack at the board and therefore forfeited the game, last (with all these crazy reasons for how it could happen, does the concept of "game" ("a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck." -Google) still apply?)?
Does the concept of "chess game" as a game of skill, still apply? hmmm...sort of. Chances are though that, were it to occur, the 2700 was willfully throwing the game (in which the "game" is not one, really), the 1300 was actually much stronger than his/her rating showed (in which case, the "1300" rating is deceptive).
This has probably been brought up, but this site (http://www.bobnewell.net/cgi/elop.pl) says that 2700 vs. 1300 winning probability is: 0.99968387220237 . haha. So the 1300 can draw or win 1 in 3162 games against a 2700. Personally I think that's not realistic. The 1300's chances are, in reality much worse. 

I don't agree with the boxing comparison.  A professional featherweight boxer, while no match for a heavy weight, is nonetheless highly skilled and proficient. A 1300 player either has serious and significant defects, or is a child who is on his or her way up. In either case, the 2700 player has such skill that the only measure of interest is whether the 1300 can last 30 moves.

As a 1500 player in three simuls against a mere 2500 player, I beat the odds with a single draw. That was the only game that lasted more than 30 moves. That was a decade ago.

1300 isn't necessarily beginners rating. The nine year old girl Amelia Nordquelle at 1366 fide has more than 161 longchessgames. Her strength in the opening and middle game is not far away from IM level, but she has a lot of work to do to get up there in the endgame.

I got beaten so beautiful and terrible by her in  a rapid game on tuesday. I have never ever been hit by anything that powerful (I have never played IM og GM in long chess) I am at 1396 FIDE with 127 games and my daily chess rating on chess.com is 1786.  We are not talking about beginners here. We are talking about roughly 3 or 4 years of serious competition chess. 

Amelia is now my biggest upset favourite. Her brilliancy is very artistic. If she attends Norsk Toppidrettsgymnas, lead by GM Simen Agdestein, she will graduate with GM or IM title.

Also watch out for ten year old Livia Lindstad at 1168 FIDE with 45 games. She is  Norwegian champion for girls up to ten years. Those two girls have something special. GM potential. 

A 1300 is a strong beginner. Still a beginner though because of missing simple tactics pretty often and unpredictably in classical time controls. 

If you are 1400 FIDE with 3-4 years of serious competitive chess, then you're studying wrong - all you have to do is play with basic positional understanding (develop pieces, don't let your opponent be too active, etc.) and not make simple tactical mistakes (safety checks), and you'll beat 1400 FIDEs pretty often, more than often enough to get 1400+ FIDE.

Maybe I does something wrong, and I see myself as my worst enemy. A lot of games have been lost because not using enough seconds on a single move. My strength is typical for middle aged men i my club that has played ca four or five years, and has some chess history as  a kid. Those above 1800 FIDE at my age typically has played several decades.  

Here is a fun calculator: https://chess-db.com/public/winprob.jsp?elo1=1300&elo2=2000

no

About the same odds as getting a winning lottery ticket. These 2400+ plus guys see almost everything and they seldom go to sleep even against patzers.

What I am talking about is that we 1300s is not consistently bad. In our better games we are dangerous. But of course, the GMs dont let us play fantastic . Anyway. My last 5-5 blitz game was great. Capsscore 99,44. 18 moves, all excellent, 83,3% best move. Good games happens now and then, and I have been consistently good for two games in a row.

A GM would never have played a blunder like ..9e5 imprisoning his own bishop, cramping his position and weakening d6.

Of course a 1300 ELO can win from a 2700 top IGM. Get him pissed, tight, soaked, plastered, smashed, drunk as a skunk, get the point? Wait till he falls asleep, or to make even more sure, wait till he's dead. Then begin the game. Whatever opening move you choose, you will probably win on time.

I told that a GM never will blunder like that. I realize that 1300s is going to lose every time, but what I say is that the gap is far far less than many players believes in those games where the 1300s performs the best. 1300s plays many good games, but is low rated because they play  lots and lots of bad games too. Sooner or later they get more consistent, and are no longer 1300s.

Amelia Nordquelle  is 1398 now , and will become a master in a few years. There is something with here. A super GM can be very satisfied if he manages to beat her.

The best 1300s can play very good. A good 1300 have good chances against a 2000 (not a 2700, against a 2700 the chances are very very small, but they still excist), and the 1300s can lose to a 800.

I am totally aware of that fantastic play is based on the opponent making inaccuracies, and that the chance of a 2700 giving inaccuracies are minimum. Minimum, but not none.

I dont know what batine means, and I really hope to play against masters. I expect to lose, but I want to feel the power, and I want them to punish my ideas.

No.

The only difference betwen a 1300, and a 2700 is the number, and severity of the mistake(s).  

2 years ago 1400 blitz on ICC checkmated 2550+ rated GM. And video gained 2 millions views.

He prepared specific opening and knowing the agressive Ego addicted GrandMaster who went grabing pieces, later trapped his queen. The frustrated GM castled queen side and did not care much about opponents threats and  did made some weak moves and ended in checkmate in two out of nowhere.

Obviously that does not happen everyday. But it could happen once in 2 000 games or something like that when the GM won so many games that his guard was down.

PGN?

Just youtube "trickymate".

only 47 new comments? I think as a species we've realized the answer.