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

Well of course there's always a chance.  Clearly the odds are against you though.  

As much as I would like to say you can, the prob. is that unless he like blunders a queen, he will still most likely win. Plus, the 1300 will blunder way before the 2700 does

in other words, there is close to 0%

In ELO system, 1300 player would win 1 out of 4^(1400/200) games  due to luck

and/or misrating. Which is 1 in 16384.  Don't bet on it!

This actually occurred last weekend when the Arizona Cardinals

beat the New England Patriots in Foxboro.

lets see..end-game.1300 beat a 2700 in an end game-no! How about in the opening ? G.Ms have this stuff memorized. So a win takes place during the middle game ? Even if a piece was hung the G.M has too much know how not to be able over-coming the situation....an out-right over looked mate---they say anything is possible,but 1300? NO<NO<AND NO!!

The thing is the 1300 could, simply by being amazingly lucky, choose the perfect move every move of the game.  It's not likely but it could happen.

Capb. a great chess player lost after he retired from chess to a second rated player(16/1700).When asked "HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN" from a man who see's 7/8 moves ahead to someone playing each move ? His reply"He made the correct moves !!     TRUE STORY

Sometimes seeing further ahead can hurt your play as you have to

defend threats your opponent may not even be aware of!  This

happens with strong chess computers sometimes.

A grandmaster is still confined by the position.

Ratings are derived from a formula that specifically deals with expected scores you know... so you can check for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Mathematical_details

A 1300's expected score vs 2700 is about 0.000316 or 1 point (be it from a win or two draws, the math doesn't doesn't make a distinction between a half win and a draw) every 3163 games or so.

I don't have any info on how likely draws vs wins are in practice for different rating distributions vs certain opposition, but I think we can say from experience / general chess knowledge that lower rated players draw much less frequently.  So we see as your ability to produce a draw lowers (that is to say, as we're considering weaker and weaker players) we see that the ELO formula will more closely give an expected score in terms of wins and not a combination of wins and draw or only draws.

So actually it's harder (or at least less likely) for the 1300 to draw a 2700 in a serious game than it is for the 1300 to beat him lol.

All this to say, the 1 in 3163 games should be fairly accurate.

That's the same as asking if the Average chess player in the world could beat Magnus Carlsen, could a highschool sprinter have a chance to beat Usain Bolt in the 100m dash.

To wafflemaster and all of the others doing Elo-system math:

Those calculations work for people who are relatively close in rating, but every model breaks down at some point.  When one player has twice the points of the other, the probabilistic model of the Elo system breaks down. The experimental error on the expectation calculation from an Elo rating is far greater than .0003.  It is likely that it will take far more than 3163 games for a 1300 player to beat a 2700 player considering other factors.

Yes three is a chance I've found for some strange reason the stronger my opponent the stronger I am solid strategic chess but then playing very lower rates it can all go out the window not insulting but they lower opponents can dumb chess down however its highly unlikely a 1300 will beat 2700 often

In that you're comparing two unlikely things, yes, that's correct.  However in that the two competitions are similar it falls short.

It's easier to fall behind in chess than in a footrace.  In a footrace each unit of distance that the leader has as an advantage must be overcome sequentially.

The thing that's made chess appealing for centuries is (IMO) the creative aspects.  Advantages are transioned through many types during an actual game.  An advantage built up through 40 good moves can be dissipated with one bad move.  "Chess, a tragedy of a single tempo!" is a lament many players have felt.  Or perhaps you have a size able advantage, and transition it into a favorable endgame... favorable but also drawn with best play as your opponent may demonstrate.

Another reason is the way in which advantageous are gained.  For Bolt, each stride is sure to gain X units of distance give or take a small amount.  Each characteristic that makes him an effective runner is effective in every race.  Stride, VO2 max, diet, etc will equally effect every race with very small variance. 

For a chess player, his ability to navigate certain positions skillfully may not even come up during a game.  For example skill in a certain opening, in strategic planning, or in tactics, may hold a different imoprtance (if any at all) from one game to the next.

This is also seen in how we can measure performance.  In racing, you can measure it with a stop watch directly.  In chess, "chess strength" is never measured directly (or even attempted to be).  We take past results and give a number which statistically gives the expected score for future games based by comparing your opponent's past results with your own.  We can never compare general knowledge/ability directly without having a long match or something like a double round robin tourney.

Oh, actually that makes a lot of sense, I didn't think of that.

The biggest upset I've ever seen in a (USCF) tournament--well, actually I didn't see it myself, but I was at the tourney where it happened and others witnessed it--was a 900 beating a 2100.

Probably aren't too many people around who can say that they beat somebody over twice their rating. 

I beat a 1500 when I was rated around 900 or so. It culminated when my opponent threatened my Queen and I moved my Knight to threaten mate in 1. My opponent took my Queen and I won his King!

I think people are too quick to equate anything that is extremely unlikely with impossible. They are two different things. Yes, it's hard to imagine how on earth a 1400 point upset would ever happen, but that most certainly does not mean that it's impossible, even if we assume the 2700 and 1300 ratings are accurate indications of each player's strength.

Extremely strange things most certainly can happen when you have the benefit of 3163 tries to do so.

When I am playing someone 600 points below my strength, there is not some kind of barrier around me that prevents me from losing. No, it's just that I make mistakes with far fewer frequency than he would be expected to do. Sometimes, this simple fact makes it seem like there is a magical barrier, but it's an illusion. I have most certainly made mistakes that a beginner would be expected to make. It happens extremely rarely, but in no way can I ever be 100% immune to them.

hessmaster: Again, extremely unlikely does not equate to impossible

  Yeah, it's always fun to be that 1900 too...

I saw a 1900 come in drunk (like stumbling directly from the bar to the playing hall drunk), 40 minutes late to a 60 minute game, and wipe the floor with a 1200.