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

superchessmachine
htaed_fo_legna wrote:

Sure. The 1300 is actually an extremely talented prodigy who has been playing against real life opponents and has only recently joined a chess site. The 2700 just happened to be one of the first persons in his path.

lol

htaed_fo_legna
superchessmachine wrote:
htaed_fo_legna wrote:

Sure. The 1300 is actually an extremely talented prodigy who has been playing against real life opponents and has only recently joined a chess site. The 2700 just happened to be one of the first persons in his path.

lol

I'm glad to provide additional entertainment alongside chess.

amiakr8

Or a sandbagger GM.  

amiakr8

I wonder how often a 1300 or so goes up against a GM.  1500's and above happens fairly often when tournaments are split between  Open and U2000 sections; but the 1300's usually stick to U2000 (OTB).

fpon

all very funny.   A 1300 has zero (0) chance to beat a 2200 much less a 2700.   IF a 1300 beats a 1700, where again he has a 0 chance, that means most likely the 1300 is underrated and is rapidly improving so the 1300 rating is inaccurate, and/or the 1700 is really chess blind that day.    I beat an 1800 OTB, I think it was 18 moves, certainly less than 20, when I was 1100; standard time controls i.e, LONG;  won $150 for best upset of tournament; he so looked down on me that in a much superior position he played quickly and allowed me to back rank mate him.   He didn't think I knew how to sacrifice the exchange to win.  We played again the following year, same annual tournament, He was much more careful;  yes I lost.   When I was 1550, I drew a master 2200; I remain the ONLY 1500 player that master ever played that he didn't beat.   Ratings account poorly for rapidly improving players. 

amiakr8

I would have to take issue with 1300 having zero chance of beating a 1700 (ELO right?).  400 rating pt differential doesn't equate to zero chance.  There's also the infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters theory.

KevinHass1

It's easy for a 1300 to beat a 2700.

The 1300 plays a Scandinavian, and as the 2700 reaches for the queenside knight on move 3, the 1300 forcibly grabs the the GM's hand and makes him touch his king. The 1300 exclaims that the GM has touched his king, and the bribed TD comes over to rule that the 2700 must move his king. White plays 3. Ke2 and black plays Qe4#.

fso

But the point is he didn't play on 2700 ELO level of play this game, so the game does not count happy.png

FrancisCominelli
fpon wrote:

all very funny.   A 1300 has zero (0) chance to beat a 2200 much less a 2700.   IF a 1300 beats a 1700, where again he has a 0 chance, that means most likely the 1300 is underrated and is rapidly improving so the 1300 rating is inaccurate, and/or the 1700 is really chess blind that day.    I beat an 1800 OTB, I think it was 18 moves, certainly less than 20, when I was 1100; standard time controls i.e, LONG;  won $150 for best upset of tournament; he so looked down on me that in a much superior position he played quickly and allowed me to back rank mate him.   He didn't think I knew how to sacrifice the exchange to win.  We played again the following year, same annual tournament, He was much more careful;  yes I lost.   When I was 1550, I drew a master 2200; I remain the ONLY 1500 player that master ever played that he didn't beat.   Ratings account poorly for rapidly improving players. 

 

1300s can and have beaten 2200s. 

 

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblPlr.php?201503286992-001-12930540

See link. a 1368 beats a 2209.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblPlr.php?201610091882-001-15728407

a 1537 beats a 2421.