Well looking from your games you play mostly blitz and bullet. So its way easier for a 1800 player to make a dumb mistake and lose in those fast time control circumstances. But a GM hardly makes those kind of mistakes, and even when they do, still play very very well.
Is it more likely for an 800 to beat a 1600 or an 1800 to beat a 2600?
Sort:
The best game I had ever had is beating a 2600 while im a 1700, it was on lichess,org XD
EmberGerlach wrote:
In my experience, players in the 800-1100 range seem to beat players in the 1600-1800 range far more often than expected. I remember one tournament where I was rated 1800 and was down a knight and getting smashed by an 825 (before he eventually blundered and lost) and the guy next to me, also rated roughly 1800, was down several pawns to a 900 in the endgame (also eventually winning). Meanwhile a 1600 actually lost to another 800 player.
On the other hand, I've never, ever, heard of an 1800 player beating a 2600 GM player. So to me the rating system is probably a little flawed at the top stages.
Do you guys have similar experiences?
My response might be almost five years too late, but I believe that the difficulty of the game increases exponentially as the rating of players increases. Conversely, I suspect that if we draw a graph to describe your situation above, the graph might appear logarithmic.
The relationship between the pH value of a substance and its hydrogen ion concentration closely resembles your situation. It is more difficult to convert a pH 2.0 acid into a pH 1.0 acid than a pH 5.0 acid into a pH 4.0 acid.
2000s are entirely on another level
In my experience, players in the 800-1100 range seem to beat players in the 1600-1800 range far more often than expected. I remember one tournament where I was rated 1800 and was down a knight and getting smashed by an 825 (before he eventually blundered and lost) and the guy next to me, also rated roughly 1800, was down several pawns to a 900 in the endgame (also eventually winning). Meanwhile a 1600 actually lost to another 800 player.
On the other hand, I've never, ever, heard of an 1800 player beating a 2600 GM player. So to me the rating system is probably a little flawed at the top stages.
Do you guys have similar experiences?