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

It could be possible when the 2700 plays against 25 or 30 players in exhibition. The pace is very fast. Each player has 5 or 10 minutes to concentrate while the pro has only seconds. Running boards after boards, he can't make any plans and probably can't remember the last move. Some of the players should win and good chances there's 1300 or even less in that gang... But in a real game, it's something else...

It could be possible when the 2700 plays against 25 or 30 players in exhibition. The pace is very fast. Each player has 5 or 10 minutes to concentrate while the pro has only seconds. Running boards after boards, he can't make any plans and probably can't remember the last move. Some of the players should win and good chances there's 1300 or even less in that gang... But in a real game, it's something else...

I've watched a 2500 take on thirty players, and yes he loses a few, but these are to 1700s, not 1300s. 2700s are in the top 51 in the world. They eat 2500s for lunch.

Look I don't think the original question was meant to address whether a 2700 might lose to a 1300 if they're playing 150 people simultaneously and the GM gets 1 second to think about their moves and the 1300 gets an hour. The original question was whether a 1300 rated player could ever defeat a 2700. The answer is yes in theory but no in the real world.

The answer is no in theory, no in the real world, but within the realm of random possibility given that a 2700 could be drunk or have a stroke.

My final answer: the 1300 can't beat the 2700, because the 2700 sees more then the 1300 :-) hope that sets it straight finally.

It could be possible when the 2700 plays against 25 or 30 players in exhibition. The pace is very fast. Each player has 5 or 10 minutes to concentrate while the pro has only seconds. Running boards after boards, he can't make any plans and probably can't remember the last move. Some of the players should win and good chances there's 1300 or even less in that gang... But in a real game, it's something else...

You underestimate their strength. Pro players can play at an excellent level on autopilot, working without really calculating and using only pattern recognition.

I've been co-organizer of strong simuls with the likes of Kramnik or Anand ~15 years ago. They didn't lose any single game when pitted against 35 students in the rating range 1500-2300...

Better to sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian.

Hey, stop quoting Mudville, will ya?

My final answer: the 1300 can't beat the 2700, because the 2700 sees more then the 1300 :-) hope that sets it straight finally.

This way there is no need to play chess.

simply compare the ratings, the one rated higher wins because he "sees" more than the lower rated player, if they have the same rating, simply it's a draw

There's plenty of reason to play when ratings are within a few hundred points.

Applying the "magical" ELO formula that returns the expected winning percentage of a player based off the rating difference, the 1300 player will win about 0.032% of games.... thats a measly 4 wins per 125 games.

It's hard to say whether the ELO system is very accurate when estimating the expected winning percentage of such a match because of the huge rating difference between the players. But still, 4 - 121 in favor of the 2700 player tells a strong story.

Applying the "magical" ELO formula that returns the expected winning percentage of a player based off the rating difference, the 1300 player will win about 0.032% of games.... thats a measly 4 wins per 125 games.

It's hard to say whether the ELO system is very accurate when estimating the expected winning percentage of such a match because of the huge rating difference between the players. But still, 4 - 121 in favor of the 2700 player tells a strong story.

I think that you are misreading the Elo data. A 2700 playing a simul against 125 1300 players *might* give up four games *on a bad day*.