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

I think a 2700 can very likely beat a 1300 patzer.

If you're going to make such outrageous claims, then I will demand either proof or satisfaction. Please show me proof of a 2700 vs 1300 victory or we shall meet tomorrow at sundown at a location or your choosing.

Also, how about a 2700 vs a non-patzer 1300?

Come on chess.com members, we need to figure out the realistic chances of this happening. Otherwise, the integrity of chess as a game may suffer. After all, if we have no evidence that a 2700 can beat a 1300, then how can we claim that our rating systems are accurate? How can we know, then, that the strategies employed by 2700s are truly superior to those employed by 1300s?

This truly has the potential to break down what we fundamentally know and understand about chess. Please do not take this topic lightly.

Username checks out. Of course, you can play against a 2700 GM, but that doesn't mean that they'll win.

I still have not received a sufficient answer to my question. To my knowledge, there is not a single game in history wherein a 2700 has defeated a 1300 player. How do we know who is better if they never compete?

Of course a 2700 player is far better, and our Elo system is quite accurate. A 1300 player would hardly know any openings, while a super gm plays openings to near perfection, while there are no tournament games, a engine rated 2700 would defeat the 1300 player easily

I think you will find 2700 players beating up on 2300 rateds who in turn beat up on 1900s, etc. down the line.

That is true

Obviously a troll thread, but have a look at simuls.  Carlsen recently played one in New York against 12 players rated between 1000 and 2200.  He won every game easily.

There are numerous open events in Europe where top GMs play 1700-1900s in the first round and they always win easily.  I remember a Rapport game where he mated his opponent in 6 moves (Qe2 Caro Kann trap) and another where van Vely won a rook in about 9 moves.

In an open event near where I live a GM, around 2550, played a 1500 who I know pretty well in the first round and the GM won easily.  Didn't help that my friend tried an untested opening novelty 

Have them taken out when they go for a bathroom break and wait for their time to expire

OK, this comes close to answering my question. However, I specifically asked about 2700s and 1300s. Two issues:

1) Carlsen is well into the 2800s, and I'm more confident in his abilities to beat a 1300.

2) Did he actually beat a 1300 in the simul? The range you gave me is pretty wide. I'm looking for a specific answer (not 1000s, not 1400s, etc.).

Can't seem to find any record of a 2700 vs 1300 game. Can someone with proficient chess game-finding skills help out?

I shall accept the proof when I see the pudding. After all, I'm a very objective, analytical individual.

Carlsen is much better than 2700! :)

Oh, fooled me lol. Didn't realize this was a new thread but then I saw there weren't hundreds of page numbers :)

Anyway, I would say it's possible, but very likely.

Well, by methemathical theory, if a 2700 could beat 1000s-2200s easily, he should be able to beat what's in between (1300). However, what if chess playing strength isn't as linear as we believe? Methematical theory would then be wrong and we'd have to resort to mathematical theory (and I don't even want to get started on that).

Right, ratings beyond a certain range aren't accurate. That's why it's plausible that a 1300 could beat a 2700, maybe 20% chance, because once you're outside of the rating range, every prediction is equally valid and you can just pick one and it automatically makes sense.

I thought this was the Turkish's dudes thrad.

Will this thread also reach 2500+ commnets?

But I'm not asking whether a 1300 could beat a 2700. That's already been discussed in prior threads. I'm asking whether a 2700 could beat a 1300.

Obvious. A 2700 has a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of beating a 1300.