How often would a 1300 beat a 1800?
They have an expected score of 8%.
So 8 wins in 100 games, or 4 wins 8 draws.
However, the rating system doesn't work well with large gaps and above about a 400 gap the higher rated player will score more than they should.
Lower.
Nope http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-elo-rating-system-correcting-the-expectancy-tables
How often would a 1300 beat a 1800?
They have an expected score of 8%.
So 8 wins in 100 games, or 4 wins 8 draws.
However, the rating system doesn't work well with large gaps and above about a 400 gap the higher rated player will score more than they should.
Lower.
Nope http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-elo-rating-system-correcting-the-expectancy-tables
I started reading this. There is a 400 point rule telling that at 400 and above the better players should score the same (92%), Jeff Sonas does not agree. He rather wants a 800 rule, the datas tells him that there are differences detectable between the +400´s and +800´s, and he will flatten out the expectations from 800+ with expectations of 98 %.
If I was 1300 Fide (I am unrated) the 400-rule tells that I would have the same chances (92%) against both a 1700 and a 2800. I dont think thats true. I expect to score at least 10% (but hope for 25-40%) against 1700´s, and nothing against Carlsen, Anand and Caruana.
Therefore I agree with Sonas that the 400 rule is inaccurate, and should be replaced with a 800 rule, expecting ca 98%.
Yes I think the same......
How often would a 1300 beat a 1800?
They have an expected score of 8%.
So 8 wins in 100 games, or 4 wins 8 draws.
However, the rating system doesn't work well with large gaps and above about a 400 gap the higher rated player will score more than they should.
Lower.
Nope http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-elo-rating-system-correcting-the-expectancy-tables
Good article that confirms my correction.
The article points out that higher rated players underperform when the rating gap is 400-500, but overperform when it exceeds 500.
Correct your 400 in the statement, and then the article refutes my correction.
I think the 400 rule is meant to be a bonus to strong players, encouraging them to play lowrated players, giving them som extra ratingpoints.
The masters are taking some ratingrisk playing lowrated players.
The lowrated players might be a lot stronger than their rating. Imagine Magnus at the age of 10 or 11, when he was rated at 1500, I guess he already then could be a mastertrasher.
Good article that confirms my correction.
The article points out that higher rated players underperform when the rating gap is 400-500, but overperform when it exceeds 500.
Correct your 400 in the statement, and then the article refutes my correction.
Na, you're just being an arse.
Good article that confirms my correction.
The article points out that higher rated players underperform when the rating gap is 400-500, but overperform when it exceeds 500.
Correct your 400 in the statement, and then the article refutes my correction.
Na, you're just being an arse.
I do become a bit of an arse towards those who cite research they have not read or that they misread. Performance exceeds expectations at roughly 500 Elo difference, although the expectation line becomes flat at 400.
Nice article!
Seems Scott's was a technical error (500, not 400).
Seems Ziryab's was a conceptual error (the heavy favorites over perform, not under perform).
I don't think it's fair to use the technical error to say he didn't understand the article when it seems to correct your general misunderstanding concerning heavy favorites.
And next time I face an opponent 1 or 2 hundred points below me I'll have to remember it's closer to 0.83X heh (in FIDE games anyway...)
shell_knight, you have a point that presumes I was shooting in the dark with no knowledge of the evidence.
Nice article!
Seems Scott's was a technical error (500, not 400).
Seems Ziryab's was a conceptual error (the heavy favorites over perform, not under perform).
I don't think it's fair to use the technical error to say he didn't understand the article when it seems to correct your general misunderstanding concerning heavy favorites.
And next time I face an opponent 1 or 2 hundred points below me I'll have to remember it's closer to 0.83X heh (in FIDE games anyway...)
Indeed, arguing over a small point when the basic premise is correct is a standard internet tactic though. Can't be bothered to engage.
Nice article!
Seems Scott's was a technical error (500, not 400).
Seems Ziryab's was a conceptual error (the heavy favorites over perform, not under perform).
I don't think it's fair to use the technical error to say he didn't understand the article when it seems to correct your general misunderstanding concerning heavy favorites.
And next time I face an opponent 1 or 2 hundred points below me I'll have to remember it's closer to 0.83X heh (in FIDE games anyway...)
Indeed, arguing over a small point when the basic premise is correct is a standard internet tactic though. Can't be bothered to engage.
Oh, how the masses here at Chess.com adore the hair splitting contest, the debaters and the onlookers, alike...
I regret only that such hair splitting may kill this otherwise instructive thread.
Nice article!
Seems Scott's was a technical error (500, not 400).
Seems Ziryab's was a conceptual error (the heavy favorites over perform, not under perform).
I don't think it's fair to use the technical error to say he didn't understand the article when it seems to correct your general misunderstanding concerning heavy favorites.
And next time I face an opponent 1 or 2 hundred points below me I'll have to remember it's closer to 0.83X heh (in FIDE games anyway...)
In my experience--tournaments that I play in and those that I run--"heavy favorites" are those 200-500 higher than their opponents. Games with 500+ rating differences in ratings are rare.
Heavy favorites underperform, according to the data. That changes beyond 500 Elo for reasons that are structured into the equation beginning at a difference of 400.
The technical details in the article are quite important to its conceptual generalizations.
1300-1800=-500
Nice article!
Seems Scott's was a technical error (500, not 400).
Seems Ziryab's was a conceptual error (the heavy favorites over perform, not under perform).
I don't think it's fair to use the technical error to say he didn't understand the article when it seems to correct your general misunderstanding concerning heavy favorites.
And next time I face an opponent 1 or 2 hundred points below me I'll have to remember it's closer to 0.83X heh (in FIDE games anyway...)
In my experience--tournaments that I play in and those that I run--"heavy favorites" are those 200-500 higher than their opponents. Games with 500+ rating differences in ratings are rare.
Heavy favorites underperform, according to the data. That changes beyond 500 Elo for reasons that are structured into the equation beginning at a difference of 400.
The technical details in the article are quite important to its conceptual generalizations.
Thanks for the explanation. After #502 I thought you were just being stubborn, but I can see it from your POV now.
Nice article!
Seems Scott's was a technical error (500, not 400).
Seems Ziryab's was a conceptual error (the heavy favorites over perform, not under perform).
I don't think it's fair to use the technical error to say he didn't understand the article when it seems to correct your general misunderstanding concerning heavy favorites.
And next time I face an opponent 1 or 2 hundred points below me I'll have to remember it's closer to 0.83X heh (in FIDE games anyway...)
In my experience--tournaments that I play in and those that I run--"heavy favorites" are those 200-500 higher than their opponents. Games with 500+ rating differences in ratings are rare.
Heavy favorites underperform, according to the data. That changes beyond 500 Elo for reasons that are structured into the equation beginning at a difference of 400.
The technical details in the article are quite important to its conceptual generalizations.
Thanks for the explanation. After #502 I thought you were just being stubborn, but I can see it from your POV now.
I also have an even score over the past six years against one particular opponent who tends to be about 500 below me. Since passing 1800 in 2009, he and one other player are the only ones under 1700 who have beaten me. The other player rose over 200 points this summer and is now only about 30 points below me.
What actual evidence do you have to support this claim? You certainly haven't cited any.
My own experience, and evaluation of players I met here, otb, and in my otb-club.
So in other words anecdoctal evidence. Or to put it more accurately no evidence at all.
The only way to provide actual evidence would be to cite how rating differences predict actual results amongst various rating pools. Not easy to do without the full databases and some actual programming.
But maybe we should avoid making claims for which we don't have and can't provide any actual evidence.
Sorry I have been inaccurate, Fide and chess.com-ratings might be ca. equally presice, the largest downside with fiderating is not presicion, it is the time delay (and usually lower number of games). The Fidenumbers are describing a strenght that was some months ago, and that is the reason the ratings looks very strange, especially when playing talented , hardworking kids who have a strenghtincreasing speed above 200 points a year.
The downside with chess.com rating is that some strong players dont take the game as seriously as they do in fiderated otb-tournaments. Many players use chess.com for joy and testing. Some players drink more alcohol or are more tired or less focused when playing online. And there are timeouters.
I am myself rated maybe 50 points below my strenght on chess.com online, because of playing too much games, and moving to much when tired. In Norwegion otb-elo, I am ca 200-300 points below my strenght because it describes my results from january to june, and I have strenghtened after that.
I will not say that I have a sure truth here, but I am describing how it looks from my point of wiev.