I'm actually rather surprised that a 2300 just resigned in that position. After all, he is 1000 points higher rated -- make the 1300 nervous by forcing him to prove why his extra queen will force mate.
In any case, I wish those masters would do such a thing for me 
You pick up the board. Better if it's wood instead of vinyl that is ubiqutous these days. Then you whack him over the head with it. Now, was that so hard? A 1300 beat a 2700 unconscious, and it will be all over the news tomorrow :p
In all seriousness though, a 1300 beating a 2700 is one in a billion occurence. Chess is not a game of chance. The only way a 1300 can beat a 2700 is if the 2700 blunders into a forced checkmate AND the 1300 sees it. Otherwise I highly doubt the 1300 can do any damage even with a queen handicap.
beck15, you underestimate 2700s by giving a 1300 a one in a billion chance of winning a legitimate chess game.
I figured one in a billion chance was large enough that nobody could do it in their lifetime :D
A lifetime has 100 years, which are 36,500 days. We need to play about 27,000 games per day - or one every 3 seconds if we never sleep or do anything else, to reach a billion...
pretty amazing output from an 1300. I would expect him to rise up to at least 1330.
Don't be ridiculous, the 1300 would need to win or at least draw the 2700 to rise in rating.
Actually, I think the 1300 would probably become a 0 by the time he beat the 2700 
That might be right, depending upon the formula being used. I noticed that some games that I win against particularly lower rated players, I don't gain any points. And I've definitely lost one game against a much higher rated player from which I came out with the same rating as well.
I find it rather cruel, to subject an 1300 (quite a talented guy if he has that rating at birth and can play a game while he suckles!) to perpetual drilling by a 2700, day in and day out, 24h/24, as a sole condition enabling him to rise up the score ladder. I'm happy I wasn't subject to this condition!
I wonder who the sado/masochistic long-lived 2700 would be then (only like 50 guys to choose from - or are they going to rotate against the poor chap? Each one from Magnus to whoever is at bottom 2700 now (ding?) will have his turn once every 2 minutes and thirty seconds, if my calculation is correct
I find it rather cruel, to subject an 1300 (quite a talented guy if he has that rating at birth and can play a game while he suckles!) to perpetual drilling by a 2700, day in and day out, 24h/24, as a sole condition enabling him to rise up the score ladder. I'm happy I wasn't subject to this condition!
Yeah, and with all these monkeys typing Shakespearian works on his back and suggesting random-genrated moves in his ear... I mean, imagine the plight !
What a mess... but still I guess that I'd prefer to be that player than to be the cleaning lady after these monkeys...
I suppose though we should factor in the possibility of something daft happening, e.g. the GM falls asleep at the board (Tkachiev!), his mobile phone goes off and he gets defaulted, etc.
I say if the 1300 just divorced, had no sleep, was sick, unconcentrated because someone kept throwing sand at him, blindfolded and played a game of cards at the same time. The 2700 might just stand a chance of winning.
Or the 1300 would just lose equally bad.
You've got the ratings reversed.
I highly doubt it my friend.
The random will perform better than the 1300. The random generator might fail to checkmate 100 000 times but the 1300 will never even get the position, I'm sorry, it just wont happen.
I suppose though we should factor in the possibility of something daft happening, e.g. the GM falls asleep at the board (Tkachiev!), his mobile phone goes off and he gets defaulted, etc.
Why should we do that, Madhacker? If the question was 'are there any circumstances in which a 1300 would beat a 2700?'. Then we can all instantly see the answer is a resounding yes. This is why I suggested rephrasing the questions as:
"If an infinite number of sober, wide awake and in every way in perfect frames of mind players rated 2700 played a an infinite number of 1300's in the same frame of mind, would any of the 1300's win?"
Now that, I would say, is an interesting question - and the interesting answer is yes. It tells you something about the nature of the game of chess, the nature of probabilities, the fact that chess ratings are not laws of nature... all kinds of interesting things.
Similary, Beckyschess - the answer to whether or not a 1300 is likely to beat a 2700 within the lifetime of the universe is also not terribly interesting... unless of course anyone is planning on arranging this experiment for the entirety of the universe's existence, it really doesn't matter.
which is calculated from
exp((2700-1300)/100) : 1 = exp(14) : 1
no need billions of games... 1 or few millions could be okay.
If the 2700 player is a drunk as a headless chicken and the 1300 is as fresh as a daisy, then yes of course.
Just like Droylsden FC vs Arsenal. If all the Arsenal players were on the shots all night, and the Droylsden team were training like army soldiers, then Droylsden would beat Arsenal
This is just to show that masters may not be as good as they seem...http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=198942