this is like asking if difference of 2 and 6 is the same as of 34 and 38. Yes.
100 elo points difference
Sort:
No, it would not be the same. It's generally held true that as a player's rating increases linearly, the skill of that player rises exponentially. Basically, as your rating increases each individual point means more. So, it isn't very uncommon for a 1200 to beat a 1500, but it's really surprising when a 2200 beats a 2500. Of course, ratings are always nothing more than very general estimates of a player's strength.
Jul 31, 2011
0
#4
Gundisalvus wrote:
No, it would not be the same. It's generally held true that as a player's rating increases linearly, the skill of that player rises exponentially. Basically, as your rating increases each individual point means more. So, it isn't very uncommon for a 1200 to beat a 1500, but it's really surprising when a 2200 beats a 2500. Of course, ratings are always nothing more than very general estimates of a player's strength.
I agree.
Jul 31, 2011
0
#5
Gundisalvus wrote:
No, it would not be the same. It's generally held true that as a player's rating increases linearly, the skill of that player rises exponentially. Basically, as your rating increases each individual point means more. So, it isn't very uncommon for a 1200 to beat a 1500, but it's really surprising when a 2200 beats a 2500. Of course, ratings are always nothing more than very general estimates of a player's strength.
Really? The rating system is designed so that a difference of X points is equal to a winning chance of Y regardless of on what part on the scale this occurs. The greater the difference between a stronger and a weaker player, the less points are awarded for a win and more points lost for a loss for the stronger player. If I'm not mistaken, it is intended as a feature of the system that ratings are linear when it comes to winning chances. A quick test with an elo ranking calculator (http://www.ecochess.com/elocalculator.htm) shows that winning chances are indeed the same for 1200 vs 1500 as 2200 vs 2500.
Are you certain that actual winning percentages differ in these two examples?
Although mathematically it may be the same it is not the same if that makes sense. The differnce between 2200 and 2400 may be the difference between national and international success.
HMM if your asking about the improvement of 100 elo points in skill it is many times harder for a 2200 to become a 2300 then it is a 1200 to become a 1300, if not then a 2200 has the same chance of beating some one 100 points higher as a 1200 does
it is harder to beat the higher rated player in 2200 2400 .2400 is better at drawing the elo steym dosint measure drawing abliaty that esaly.
The expected score is the same. If a 1200 plays 100 games against a 1300, and a 2200 plays 100 games against a 2300, you would expect both the 1200 and the 2200 to have 36 points. However, how they get those points may be different. I would expect more wins for the 1200 player and more draws for the 2300 player.
Is a difference of 100 points in the 1200-1500 range, the same as in the 2500-2800 range?
If not how would it be different?