Ratings are a very good predictor of future results in a long series of games with a single opponent. They were in the last world championship and they will be in the next. Much better than people's subjective opinions about who is more experienced, home advantage or other factors. As I said before the last match and the women's championship.
Kramnik had to lose against Topalov in their 2006 match, according to yout statement - he had only 2743 against Topalov`s 2813.
Anand should not have to crush Kramnik with such a margin in their 2008 match too - he had only ELO 11 points more than Kramnik (2783 vs 2772).
Do you need more examples, which will refute your rating fetishism?
That's anecdotal evidence. Of course having a superior rating does not mean a sure win - it only means a win is more probable. A die landing on 5 would not refute a claim that "obtaining 4 or less is more likely".
That being said, there is a good argument that in WC matches both players prepare opening novelties, play different lines and end up in position we are not used to see them in, and that affects their relative strength. But that's not the point you made.
Do you (and other rating fetishists) have any statistical evidence of World championship tournament & match ratings to back up your claims?
I won't insult you into asking whether you really know how Elo ratings work, but I wonder.
I guess we agree ratings are a fairly good indicator of past performance ? Well then, if it was a bad indicator of future performance, we should see everyone's rating going up and down as tournaments with different results than "expected" come. Go to the FIDE rating list and you will see that is not the case.
Ratings are a very good predictor of future results in a long series of games with a single opponent. They were in the last world championship and they will be in the next. Much better than people's subjective opinions about who is more experienced, home advantage or other factors. As I said before the last match and the women's championship.
Kramnik had to lose against Topalov in their 2006 match, according to yout statement - he had only 2743 against Topalov`s 2813.
Anand should not have to crush Kramnik with such a margin in their 2008 match too - he had only ELO 11 points more than Kramnik (2783 vs 2772).
Do you need more examples, which will refute your rating fetishism?
That's anecdotal evidence. Of course having a superior rating does not mean a sure win - it only means a win is more probable. A die landing on 5 would not refute a claim that "obtaining 4 or less is more likely".
That being said, there is a good argument that in WC matches both players prepare opening novelties, play different lines and end up in position we are not used to see them in, and that affects their relative strength. But that's not the point you made.
Do you (and other rating fetishists) have any statistical evidence of World championship tournament & match ratings to back up your claims?