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

Vast numbers of things are impossible.

 This actually happened in the dutch league. A player was having a heart attack and the ambulance was called in. The ref immediately stopped all play as the team of which the player with the heart attack was were deemed in no condition to continue play and the host team agreed. The matches were later judged by a Gm hired by the dutch chess union. The match of player with the heart attack was ruled lost and the other matches were judged based on the standing when play stopped. 

I suppose. But when money is on the line, it's unlikely.

mathematical "odds" are not proof of anything. Give 1 example Morra in 400 years of this upset happening, over the board, in tournament play. It simply would never happen, being the GM was of sound mind at the time of the match. Its like saying a runner with the fastest time of 20 secs in the 100 could win a race 1 in 3000 times vs a runner with a time of 10 secs. Sure it could happen, someone might trip and fall, but that is an absurd speculation.

I agree there is nothing to debate.

People argue the GM might hang his Queen and lose. Only if the 1300 player had several pieces and the GM had only pawns. This scenario would of course never happen, the game never reaching that stage. I can see the possibilty of the 1300 winning if the GM spotted a Queen at the start. still very unlikely.

The question is 2700 rating vs 1300.

how to win against 2700+ GM 

1.Pay Him money

2.Ask him to resign.

Job well done.

I suggest Morra that the mathmatical system is basesd on probabilties. It gets projected to cover possible results. An alogrithm is used.  Numbers on a chalkboard. Not reality. Arpads system would assign a probabilty of a player rated 100 winning against a player rated 3000 as 1 in 10,000? or some other number. See the fallicy in your position?

Mathematical formulas can not always describe the real world.

I beg to differ about no one cares about the condition of the players. It would be quite absurd to discuss this if the GM were somehow severly impaired. Maybe Arpads formula took this variable into account, such as the odds of someone dropping dead at the table, although slim, is a possibilty.

I agree with you.

GM Serper wrote about the fiasco of Smyslovs stephson in the youth WC. He suffered from jetlag in Canada after beeing held back 12 hours in a inbetweenlanding in Denmark. Of course he underperformed.  There are rumours that Magnus Carlsen was so disappionted and upset that he slept poorly before the last day of the blitz WC, and the last day beame his worst in that tournament.  There are no doubt that GMs performs worse than their normal when they are less fit, for example because of sleeping too little, or illness.  

The system to rate players and assign + or - points for wins and losses is an excellent one. It is based on differences of 100, 200, 300, 400 etc. points. Wins, draws and loses are awarded points. I differ from Morra by saying at some point it breaks down.

A 1300 player sees a 2700 make a blunder. Asks a very legitimate question. Could they win a game vs a 2700 If such a blunder was made in a game vs the 1300?

I say no. A 1400 point difference is too great + the fact it is a 2700 player.

I make a few of assumptions. 1. The 2700 is of sound mind and body. 2. It is a rated game. 3. Both ratings are well established.

Let's draw the difference out. 100 vs 3000. The mathematical system using its algorithm will give let's say a 1 in million chanch. A chanch that will never happen. Ever. At some point mathematics does not describe reality.

My arguement is based that normal conditions exist. Of course hypothetical questions can ask what if this or that, such as being drunk etc. I see no point in discussing that.

Does this example apply? A spelling bee. A contest of learned and practiced mental skills. The best in the world vs someone in kindergarten. According to Morra there is a mathematical chanch the kindergarten kid can out spell the best, however high the odds may be. Using a mathematical system of percentages, odds can be established. It will never happen, not in this or any other universe.

I better make a stipulation, the kindergarten kid is of average ability and not a savant.

Players with 100 points lower rating win x amount of time. Players with 200 points lower win y amount of time. Players with 300 points lower win z amount of time. Ratings get established and points awarded for wins, draws and losses. A pattern gets established, a mathematical system is put into place accurately predicting results. It can be projected to 1000 point differences I suppose to some accuracy, but data starts getting very rare. 1400 point differences never happens in tournament pairings. There is no data to verify results. To say there is a 1 in 3163 chanch is not realistic imo. It is based on the alogrithm of 100, 200, 300 rating differences, projected out to 1400. Does not take into account the skill level of a 2700 player.

It is possible because if a person has 2700 rating does NOT not mean he is good

Correct! Not good indeed. Just 1 of the best 20 in the world. Was probably a provisional rating.

At present, the top 42.

My bad.. Thanks! Nice list.

If only me! But not so sure. Got a weak ticker.

Whether 20 or 42, however, your point is a strong one. 2700+ players are not "merely" Grandmasters. They are the best of the best. The current number 41, for example, is a former FIDE World Champion. So is number 37.

Players of this caliber when drunk and tired and blindfolded do not lose to 1300s on their very best days. The "chance" the 1300 has to win may be expressed through statistical estimates, but my bookie gives me better odds of snow skiing in hell.

Completely different processes to find moves. Completely different values being used to judge moves.

And that's just between 1300 and 2000 

techinicly speaking, if you teach a monkey to move the pieces in the correct fashion, there is a Miniscle chance the monkey will guess the right move and beat carlsen.

mdinnerspace wrote:

Ummm, you are mixing up the idea of an infinite number of monkey typing on a keyboard randomly producing a Shakespeare play with this topic.  There is zero chance of a single trained monkey playing a serial progression of games against Carlsen winning a game, ever.  The whole point of the monkeys typing Shakespeare argument is to show how incredibly large infinity actually is, not to say that monkeys can beat humans in any realistic scenario...not even with a "miniscule" chance.