http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Mathematical_details
Ratings question
Sort:
Dec 9, 2007
0
#3
60% maybe? i think both players could make stupid mistakes. and the lesser player would get better and better as the games went on
Dec 9, 2007
0
#4
I'm guessing it should also vary depending on how good the players are. If they were ELO 600 and 700 they would probably end up with different results than if they were ELO 2300 and 2400, since the 600 and 700 players would more likely end up doing mistakes and could therefore randomly lose/win games.
It would be stronger player 64% .And the weaker player 36% all things being equal...
And if 200 points difference would be 76% against 24%
Dec 9, 2007
0
#7
littleman wrote:
It would be stronger player 64% .And the weaker player 36% all things being equal...
And no draws?
In England we have are own rating system. If the difference was 100 points then the stronger player would win 99% of the games. The less rated player may improve somewhat but not enough to win any, not with only 100 games to play.
Red
efour wrote: littleman wrote:
It would be stronger player 64% .And the weaker player 36% all things being equal...
And no draws?
That includes draws and losses its the overall result average
That could only apply to a computer. People are dynamic, they change, they learn (or kill brain cells with beer). If they were 100 points apart, played all non rated games, and had no capacity for learning, that would bear out mathmatically. If they are rated games they don't stay 100 points apart. If they learn they don't stay 100 points apart. You guys have to watch "War Games."
How about a nice game of chess ?
Global Thermonuclear War.
Fine.
If two players 100 rating pionts apart played 100 games how many games do you think the stronger player would win, lose, draw?