could a 2300 IM give a 2700 a good game?

Just curious, do you think an 2300 International Master could draw/beat a 2700 say in a tournament situation if both were in good form? i don't know exactly, i would say no, but not sure. what do you think?

I remember Anand himself lost a game against a 2350 french IM, Touzane, in 2001. Even world champions blunder.

Really? could you post a link to the game?

Without blundering, I don't see how a 2300 rated player would beat a 2700 rated player. However, if the 2700 blundered, anything could happen. It seems as the rating goes up, the difference in rating points is wider. For example I think I would have better chance beating someone 400 points higher than 2300 would have of beating 2700.

I agree with you, 

I found a couple of examples of 2200+ players beating 2650+ players: http://pogonina.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2282&Itemid=1

I think the IM could draw, but win sounds highly unlikely.

-Win 4%
-Draw 8%
-Lose: 88%

(I happened to have won a long OTB game of a 360 points higher rated player yesterday, but I admit that I am not rated 2300...)

It depends on what you call a "good game".One thing's for sure,a 2300 rated player would give a 2700 rated player a much better game than if I had played him

Yes, occasionally.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1209549

wow.

The most important thing a 2300, like myself, can do against a strong or top GM is to "throw foam". What this means is make very solid moves but don't actively try to create complications. Usually the 2700 will not want a draw against you and will try to make unnecessary risks to beat you. In my probably 40 games against 2500/2600 GMs (I've only played 2 2700s, but lost both), I've won 3 games like this.

In one game that I played against Kekelidze, I actually offered him a draw in a very very dry double rook endgame on move 30. He declined and went for a double pawn pawn sacrifice to force throw a dangerous looking passed pawn, but i managed to trade rooks/defend and even win.

I think the problem with going for insane complications against GMs is the fact that they became GM's by being able to see through and make sense of the madness. More often than not, GMs will completely outplay you in tactical messes.

+1

Perfect answer

As far as I know there's Nezhmetdinov, whose among his victims; none other than Tal.

And there's Emory Tate who can brag having some GM's scalps in his chess career. As for the games' quality, these two are renowed for their electric style so should be good enough.

And another Anand mishap against the "local hero". Pascal just turned GM at the moment of the game, but even so no one could had even fathom the result

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1417848

When these questions get asked, there are ratings calculators out there that will tell you the percent chance of a win. Hint - it is NEVER zero.

Probablly

There is not much difference between 2300 and 2700.  I believe conventional wisdom says it's just a few thousand hours of practice.  It's just probably about 2 years worth of study.

I mean, 2300s know pretty much everything and 2700s know pretty much everything right?  So it's probably about equal.

This is also the reason anyone can be a GM.  All you have to do is spend a few years learning pretty much everything like those players did.  After you more or less know everything about chess it's simple.

Yeah, probably 33% chance of win, 33% chance of draw and 33% chance of loss.

what?! you can't be serious. You are saying there is no difference between squarology and A 2700? you have got to be joking! squarology himself is 2400 FIDE almost.