Players of that rating aren''t very good. Isn't Black's plan just to space invade with the a and b pawns? As well as being an extra pawn, the d3 pawn can shelter the King from checks. If the h pawn is a worry, just figure on taking it just before or just after it queens. The theory being that connected pawns on the sixth should beat a rook if it comes to that.
Just wondering!
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Just wondering!
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2022 7:47 pm
Re: Just wondering!
Haha thanks. Ya I understand what you're saying. I guess it is what it is. Just that it feels counter-intuitive when your "Performance Rating" in a tournament is 1642 and you know that the actual rating will be 1425 + 20 something!MartinCarpenter wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 1:21 pmImpressive determination on show there
The other thing is that even 190 points just isn't that big a strength gap. It seems to correspond to an expected score over time of about 0.25 - 0.75. So, assuming you 'never' win then you're expected to draw every other game.
(I've seen loads of games played at this sort of advantage and its very player dependent but t does seem to work out much closer to +2,=2 than +3,-1 over time.).
Club Secretary - Bristol Four Knights
https://bristolfourknights.co.uk
https://bristolfourknights.co.uk
-
- Posts: 1733
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm
Re: Just wondering!
I certainly find it many times harder to get a draw vs a 2260 than a win vs an 1860 player - but they gain me the same number of rating points
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Just wondering!
Its totally normal to massively over/under perform your 'underlying' grade in a given tournament Even seasons of 20-30 games can have a lot of random fluctuations involved. I'm not sure quite how many games you need for real stability - maybe 50?Arnav Sud wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 3:27 pmHaha thanks. Ya I understand what you're saying. I guess it is what it is. Just that it feels counter-intuitive when your "Performance Rating" in a tournament is 1642 and you know that the actual rating will be 1425 + 20 something!MartinCarpenter wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 1:21 pmImpressive determination on show there
The other thing is that even 190 points just isn't that big a strength gap. It seems to correspond to an expected score over time of about 0.25 - 0.75. So, assuming you 'never' win then you're expected to draw every other game.
(I've seen loads of games played at this sort of advantage and its very player dependent but t does seem to work out much closer to +2,=2 than +3,-1 over time.).
Most sensible grading systems don't try and chase those fluctuations too hard - most players have fairly stable strength so it just gets annoying - they wait until you've shown really solid evidence. That can be slightly frustrating if you are actually badly under graded/improving fast! Patience advised
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Just wondering!
Now that's a fascinating thing, which I presume some people have gathered really strong evidence on. When I was captaining York A I did briefly look for a bunch of our players and it really does vary a lot.Nick Burrows wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 4:29 pmI certainly find it many times harder to get a draw vs a 2260 than a win vs an 1860 player - but they gain me the same number of rating points
Some people are simply utterly lethal against mildly weaker players, especially in ''never' losing. Some of us are much more erratic!
More down to inherent motivation levels than playing style, I think?!
(I definitely managed to improve a bit over time.).