Here is my game against Batraski from last night. I'm now 3-0 against him in regular slow games (G/2hrs with 5sec delay). Hence the title. I was waiting for him to get his deserved revenge, but... Maybe next time, Guy.
This game has an interesting consequence in terms of ratings. I used the USCF ratings estimator to see what this 250 point upset would do to my rating. Here is the setup:
My rating: 1682
Round 1 - HP bye
Round 2 - win vs Cesar (1654)
Round 3 - win vs Guy (1939)
That puts my performance rating at 2339, and my new rating at 1719, for a 37 point gain. Not bad, but it gets interesting depending on who I play in the final round. For example:
Round 4 - ??? vs Mariyan (1823)
If I win, I gain a whopping 97 points for a new rating of 1779. But if I lose, I still gain 42 points, for a new rating of 1724, more than I would have gained by not playing at all! Does anyone out there have any understanding of this? It seems wrong to gain rating points just for showing up to one's game.
It gets worse! Besides Mariyan, I could end up playing Blazo (2110) or Richard (2213) in the last round. Here's how it could all work out:
|Round 4 opponent
||New rating if I win
||New rating if I lose
|no one, stay home
Could someone explain the mathematics that results in this strange phenomenon? I don't believe one should be rewarded for showing up and losing. On the other hand, if it's correct, it shows why you should strive to play higher-rated opposition. Not only do you learn more chess, but your rating will go up faster, even if you lose, allowing you to be paired with even stronger opponents.