10 chess levels.

Hi,

I came to conclusion that games played by 2 players with 200 points discrepance between them will end up probably like 90-10 in favour of the player who has 200 points more. This mean a clear gap between 200 points in terms of skill. A more or less result based on observation. This would result that each 200 points can be splited in a skill level. From 800 to 2600 we have 10 levels. 

Basically beginer to grandmaster.

Would be interesting instead of ratings to get and a level based on the 10 levels split, and instead of 1400 for example to get the "4th level chess player" 

Well not exactly. A 2600 will beat a 2400 90-10. But a 1000 may not beat an 800 90-10

Also u see there r folks in between. Am quite above a 1400 ...but am certainly not a 1600 as well. So where would I be...?

here's a stupid question, lol. So does the amount of points gained or lost in a game vary due to accuracy %? The last post is what brought the question to mind, I always assumed points won or lost were calculated just on wins or loses, didn't consider u accuracy to be factored in, which of course would make sense, I just assumed it was just for self evaluation, So do3s it effect score? Or amI missunderstanding

Stats aside, I don’t feel 200 points is that much. A decent amount of that can even sometimes be something as simple as rating variance between two fairly similar players. At 400 points diff, I would feel I definitely had to win / had little to no chance, depending on which direction the rating disparity is.

All of these equations can be thrown out the window if your internet opponent cheats to gain high ratings...Without face to face play there will always be some doubt that some players do not use their thinking skills and would rather use computerized chess boards to make the best possible moves to gain the advantage..

I had long time the idea... If you win or Lose has 2 components.... How strong you play and your time Management.... I am shure i can beat an 400 points higher rated Player if i could have more time than him... The question is how mutch time i need to neutralize his better techniq..... For example each 100 points will time average from 30sec in an 5min game.... 1300 against 1500 will 5:30 against 4:30 or 1600 against 2000 will 3min... against 7min....oder other idea.... Both Start with 5 min... But per move the lower rated Player get an time Bonus and higher Lose time per move... So the the better must lock for fast win because... An long endgame wirh mutch moves kill time.... And in this games for a win or Lose you always win or Lose 8 points

I don't get it. Looks like a very simplified reversed engineered gamification method to end up with 10 levels. So why is a win ratio of 90/10 equivalent to 1 level? What about draws? Why is the chess rating/skill system even linear? What about super GM's with ratings well over 2600? To me it just seems like that you've roughly mapped out the regular rating system to a 1 to 10 scale with poor resolution and less information? With these levels you can end up with 2 people in the same level essentially being just as comparably strong as 2 people in a +/-2 level difference (thats spanning half your  level system!)