Kramnik and statistics

Since Vladimir Kramnik tends to delete posts once he is faced with logic, perhaps one little post to address the 45.5 out of 46 leads to a 3600+ rating argument. He deleted this reply, so I think I will just leave it here. 

After a serious debate did you just delete one of my comments because they undermine your original argument? Or was that by mistake? 

Just in case: 

The argument is that in a match between a 3250 and 2950 rated player, a 45 out of 46 win could be argued to lead to a 3600+ rating for the winner but it could also be that the 2950 performed way below their level. If we do a progressive analysis where we adjust both players ratings after each game. Here we go. 

The dynamic Elo rating progression for each player over the 46 games, assuming the higher-rated player (3250) won 45 games and drew 1, and the lower-rated player (2950) lost 45 games and drew 1, is as follows:

3250-rated Player: Their rating progressively increased from 3250 to a peak of approximately 3302, reflecting their consistent wins against the lower-rated opponent. After the draw in the last game, their final rating slightly decreased to about 3297.91.

2950-rated Player: Their rating decreased from 2950 to a low of approximately 2897.97, with the draw in the last game resulting in a small increase to about 2902.09.

This progression shows the impact of continuous wins (and one draw) on the players' ratings. The higher-rated player's rating increased due to the consistent wins, while the lower-rated player's rating declined. The effect of the draw in the final game was minimal compared to the overall trend.

Well within the realm of possibilities. Now, given there is no insult here, nor any 'false statistics', I assume you will leave this reply up. If you don't, well... That would be saying something.