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

I'm generally pretty apprehensive when I need to stop three reasonably advanced, connected pawns supported by their king, with my own rook, even if my king is helping. 

That said, I do think that Cobra91's suggestion is also excellent, and would grant white here at least excellent winning chances, if not a certain, rock-solid outright win. Just some precise, cool calculation is required (this kind of positions is exactly where I personally tend to lose my head as the stronger side... certainly a great tip to blitzers who play against me)

Yeah, the point is that you still need to be playing chess. The 2150 should have been doing the kind of thinking like in your analysis, solskytz. The 2150 probably normally plays with plans in mind, but maybe he was hoping a little too much for the win to be automatic -- wins aren't always hard, but never automatic, especially against a strong player. You have to figure that Christiansen has just made his one huge blunder of the decade, and so he's going to make sure he doesn't hang something so obvious for the remainder of the game!

A lot of weak players, if they play on in such bad positions, tend to make their positions even worse -- they'll blunder one or two more times because the are so fed up. Strong players still try to find the absolute best move.

So yes, when a 1600 is up a piece against a 1600, the one up a piece will win very often, but that's partly because the 1600 down a piece will continue to not play very well.

I want to bring attention to Kramnik's blunder of mate in 1, though. I don't feel like his position was under too much pressure; I can just imagine, one day, while calmly calculating a position like Kramnik, a 2700 would just forget about a simple mate, yet one that can sneak up on you, and, if the 1300 were to not miss it, and it's not unlikely that he would, he would win the game immediately. True, if the 2700 merely blundered a rook or something, things wouldn't be as clear. But hanging a mate in 1 would be the 1300s best chance.

Again, the 1300 would have probably been lost already; probably, but we are not talking about what is likely here. Sometimes a position is lifeless enough for weird things like the 1300 lasting a while to happen.

Remember that a higher rating doesn't magically create knight forks when they aren't there; the 1300 might not be playing smartly but there is no guarantee that this means that a knight fork will just randomly appear. If it's not there, it's not there, no matter the rating.

Of course, I think we do agree that, although there is an infinitesimal chance, the chances are above zero.

But of course it would simply be foolish to expect such a thing to ever actually happen.

Wow, that Burden game was just tragic (the poor guy).  An apt last name if ever there was one.  Presumably time trouble had a good deal to do with that outcome...anyway, I'd be switching to checkers pretty soon (and permanently) after a debacle like that.

I'm sure it was irritating. I would think though what really made the situation difficult to swallow, is that this "easy win" would not have been just a win, but a GM scalp, quite probably his first one!

Still, I don't think he should beat himself up too much; he should just admit to himself, he didn't approach the game in the right way, and just erase all of the problems that kept him from winning the game. I once lost a game where I won a whole piece against a class A player (I was a B player though), straight out of the opening, but I wanted the win to be too automatic, drifted with my play, my position getting incrementally worse, and eventually just collapsing.

But today, I feel totally fine about it. I know I approached that game incorrectly, but I learned from it and don't think it would happen again. Not to say I won't get swindled again, but it won't be because of me trying to take a vacation from finding a plan even after winning lots of material.

I wasn't speaking literally (good grief).

Ok, I wasn't sure. Of course I didn't think it was completely literal, that is, that you were suggesting he quit chess, but you still seemed to give the message that it would be a really tough problem to recover from. Just a small miscommunication, no big deal.

Anyway, that's how I generally feel about getting over those things.

Good catch, FEDTEL! After the game, Jim did find the mate in four.

But I think it's really telling that none of the 1300 rated players here found it!

FEDTEL, I don't post simul wins unless I'm the one giving the simul. It's not proper etiquette. I won due to a blunder. Nothing glamourous there.

Nothing wrong with posting simul wins... and advertising other guys' blunders - even GMs. 

Alternative title for this thread: can a hamster beat a tiger in wrestling?

Of course he can! If he's trained in elementary hamsterial martial arts. He can just lodge itself in, you guessed it - the eye of the tiger!

The 2700 can suddenly have something in his eye, distracting him from the game. He'll politely ask the 1300 for a draw. The 1300 will determinedly say, NO! The 2700 will curse him, resign the game and look quickly for an eye doctor. 

please check out my chess blog! 

i'm not good but 

http://chesschampionship2012.blogspot.hk/

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

17 straight draws...

Why are you paying for a membership when you can get it for free as an FM?

Ah OK, you should join Team England. http://www.chess.com/groups/home/team-england

Find all games where 2700+'s lost. Including overlooked mates. queen blunders etc.

Could  a 1300 realistically have put together any of the winning games?

If so, show me.

Not sure of his exact rating at the time but:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1069539

But look at the actual game, Rooperi asked for one where a 1300 could find the moves.

With quadrillions of "tries," possibly. Otherwise, no.

What changed? Now you agree it won't happen?