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

<Plutonia> no - I didn't write it down, and even if I did, I changed into so many countries that none of my old games were saved... sorry about that :-) but I do remember the flow of the game, and some of the key events as written above. 

Ziryab, thanks for posting that game.

Sometimes, you're just deep in thought, looking at 8 move variations... and forget "oh, he can just play g4 and my queen is randomly trapped, what the hell lol," and that's what happened there. Of course, I'm not looking at it too deeply -- maybe black couldn't have done anything about g4 by the time white played Ne5, although 38...Bxe5 or 38...Nxe5 look to be a lesser evil. In any case, patterns like that are so easy to just suddenly forget about, especially if you're starting to lose focus a little bit.

I don't know if posted priviously but if the player with 1300 score is new HERE not GENERAL, maybe the 1300 was plasmatic.

I meen that a player with 1300 elo (here) maybe plays years chess many tournaments and now want to play and online. 

Exept this the 2700 elo must by tragical error

Edit I meen with original player no from a steal player( with programs)

I was a little over 1500 when I drew a 2500 IM in a 30 game simul. I missed a win, and he later missed a key move because he enforced touch move upon himself (not immediately seeing that he was in check). Later, he forced a repetition to salvage the game. He gave up two draws and two losses that night.

Those four might include a combination of draws and losses, but draws are more likely. Part of what makes a player 2700 is that he or she (her name is Judit) rarely loses.

Just out of curiousity, is 39...Nxe5  40.dxe5 Rg6  41.exd6 Rxg4+  42.Rg2 Rxg2+  43.Nxg2 Bxd6  just as bad for Black as what was played? Because for me (a mere mortal), that position would be VERY tough to win against an opponent rated 200 points higher (or even a similarly rated opponent). And I might not have [immediately] resigned that against someone rated 200 pts. lower, either.

Just a curiosity, someone here a couple of pages back 'accused' me of not 'even' being rated 2000 on this website... (I was rated 1800 something then - maybe a month ago)

well the impossible has happened - I bought a membership, did some Mentor courses and tactical training, et voila! Just made 2001 - so do feel free to congratulate me (chess.com already did, and it was really nice to receive their message - you'll know what message it was when you make 2000 yourself...)

Hey, that's pretty good.  Last night I got blitz to 1990 then lost a few games and fell back about 50 points :(

Congrats, solskytz. A funny thing seems to happen to us all when we cross ratings which are multiples of a 100.

2001 is a good rating.  People will say "It's not a GM, or even FM," but those are relatively few when compared to the number of chess players on the planet.

Waffllemaster yes, I can see the 1990 record in your profile... mine was 1978 until this evening - and in one swoosh I just made it, beating some other 1900+ player 5:1 - so don't lose courage :-)

Besides, you're in high 1900s and even made 2100+ in bullet, which is really something I find hard to grasp - my record being mid 1700s. 

Tmb86  right :-) we tend to bask in the sunshine of our own glory, avoid and evade playing for a while, just savor the taste of that exquisite new hundreds' digit (in my current case, hundreds' AND thousands' digits...)

you know, very recently I used to be very happy just being over 1900... then later, just intensely happy for being over 1950... and now this - I'm still mostly in a state of shock...

ClavierCavalier About GM and FM - it's curious to note that on my road to blitz chess.com 2000 in recent days and weeks I beat an FM 3:0 (a guy from Iran), as well as just crushing an American NM, outplaying him in a rook endgame (which has always been a known strong points where the masters always 'understand more' and thus beat the wannabes) - in a nice game published a page or a couple back on this very thread (I was still rated 1850). 

From what I see around here, blitz rating of players in chess.com is on the average some 100 to 150 points below their FIDE ratings, for those who have them. 

I see many GMs rated above 2500 IRL, here in the 2300s. So I'm sincerely flattered, as a guy who still doesn't have his own FIDE rating, and is an improving player in his 40s... 

Time to get that FIDE rating already!

The 2100 thing was a year or two ago, back before they adjusted bullet ratings down a few hundred points.  I was never as good as what a 2100 bullet player is right now.

Yeah 2000 seems like a nice number; a new thousand :) I'm hoping to jump from 1900 to 2000 (OTB) soon enough.

By the way, keep in mind that developing blitz specific strategies in order to raise your blitz rating 150 points in one night doesn't mean you will become 150 points stronger OTB that same night . Blitz ratings tend to have correlation with OTB but the accuracy can vary. Anyway, 2000 blitz is still most likely a very good sign that you are a strong player.

Elubas  Actually I didn't develop any specific blitz techniques that I didn't have before... but I do see more and new kinds of tactical and strategic themes as I've been studying, watching and analyzing much recently. 

Accuracy does vary! As some FMs are 300 or 400 points lower here, and some players are only like 30 or 40 points lower. It doesn't always correlate really... and I do wonder what my FIDE rating will turn out to be. For me anything above 2050 will be nice, and 2100 and up will just be awesome. 

Waffllemaster well anyway what you've got right now looks really nice to me - for some reason I can't get the same number in bullet (even 2 1 bullet) as I get in 3 0 blitz. Who knows... and I do see that for some players it's just the opposite - bullet 200 or 300 points higher than blitz... some things are just mystifiers. 

To get a feel for the variance, I once had a blitz rating of 1800, and a bullet of 1600; now I have a bullet of 1850, and a blitz of 1700

A lot of times, my result in blitz/bullet depends on how much I have been able to avoid sleep deprivation (because there will always be some!)

I think if I adjusted everything to blitz chess, e.g., my opening repertoire (my french defense is easier to play against under blitz time controls, because a kingside attack is much scarier than a queenside demonstration), moving at the perfect speed, etc, I'd probably hit 1900 eventually, but that's the thing: I would only be getting better at blitz specific chess; not actual chess.

On the other hand, some people can hit 1900 blitz without even trying

Yeah, it's kind of odd IMO that my blitz and bullet are so close.  I feel like I've improved in the things I see and think about on the board in the last year.  I also think my bullet has gotten worse actually (which I think is a sign of learning lol).

I came into chess on blitz and bullet, so they tend to be higher than my OTB rating.  My speculation, FWIW, is my USCF should be about 100 points lower.

It's true that blitz and OTB tournament skill sets are quite different (even if obviously related).  Two players I play at the club, one 1900 and one 2100, are a bit worse and equal to me in 10/5 games respectively.  The 1900 said he can't break 1699 in blitz on yahoo (!) and the 2100 seems perpetually stuck in analysis mode and very rarely speeds up.  From the post mortems I can tell in a tournament game he'd pick me apart.  He's played some very nice OTB games I know I coudln't copy.

These guys love to analyse and go deep in a position, and they rarely play fast games.  I'd like to think I'm more balanced, but I think my long play suffers for the blitz I like to indulge in.

All that to say, I don't think you're alone Elubas :)  Keep up the good thinking processes, OTB is where it's at

1% chance of 1300 winning

My blitz used to be hideous, like in the 1400s, and same for bullet, maybe a few years ago, but my OTB rating wasn't terribly different. I was especially bad with 0 increment. I don't consider my blitz so embarrassing anymore, but I still think it's more because I have adapted to blitz to an extent than anything else. But even after all of that, I still consider myself to be fairly weak at short time controls, and I will always prefer long games.

"I also think my bullet has gotten worse actually (which I think is a sign of learning lol)."

lol . Seriously, one time I played a lot of bullet before a tournament, totally bombed the bullet, but placed in the tournament (the masters generally take first prize, but I always hope to get some of the lower prizes).

 A few months ago I also played a kid rated 2000 in a few 5 0 blitz games  (but this is 5 0 OTB, meaning that pretty much every move will take a few seconds since the clock has to be hit) in a tournament as we waited for the next round, and I just kept losing, either blundering early on, or just getting a time disadvantage for nothing.

I happened to play him in the last round shortly after (this was a 120 minute game with 5 second delay). After he dropped a center pawn, I cruised through the technique quite convincingly and there was never much doubt I was going to get the full point.

There is obviously some correlation between blitz and OTB, but there is a large range. For example, a 1600 OTB player might have a range of 1200-1900 in blitz rating here. Range wise, he is better off than a 1400 OTB player, perhaps having a range of 1000-1700 blitz. But obviously, if a 1600 is on the low end of the range, it's quite possible the 1400 might win most of the games.

This is just an example of what I mean by a large range -- I'm not claiming those are the precise numbers.

10% chance of 1300 whining, but vastly below 1% for the win. 2700s are the top 51 players on the planet. Those who are teetotalers might lose to a 1300 when someone spikes their Mountain Dew, but accomplished drinkers can beat dozens of 1300s blindfolded and intoxicated in a simul. One on one is no contest. It would be like my high school football team taking on the Packers, except it won't be that close.

Yeah, the expert I told you about has never played online, and says he's not interested.  One time I told him about an opening I've faced in online blitz and he got this kind of blank look on his face and he asked "so... you see that opening often?" lol.