Just wondering!

[Arnav Sud]

I saw my results from the Frome congress published recently and even though I drew against opponents much higher rated than me (diff. of about 200), I only gained about 4 to 5 points per game. Screenshot attached.

Just wondering whether the FIDE ELO table is the same and whether similar results would lead to a similar change in rating?

[Roger de Coverly]

Just wondering whether the FIDE ELO table is the same and whether similar results would lead to a similar change in rating?

I believe the ECF implementation uses the same tables as the FIDE implementation.

As a rule of thumb, if you beat someone of your own rating, you score 10 points and if you draw with someone around 200 above you, you score 5 points. To get the big gains, beating people 200 or more points above is the way to go. 200 above is around 15 points when you win.

[Arnav Sud]

Hmm. Seems a bit unfair that if I draw against someone who is 90 points higher rated than me I get 2 points for it! Meaning wins against higher rated players are rewarded but draws are not.

A simple simulation on excel shows that the people who are high rated end up doing less effort overall to maintain their rating even when drawing against someone far lower rated than them!

Anyway, it is what it is.

Cheers!

[IM Jack Rudd]

The point is that a single draw against a player rated 90 points above you is evidence that you are under-rated, but not very strong evidence, so you don't get much rating change from it. Get a whole series of results like that and your rating will go up rather faster.

[Arnav Sud]

Ya I understand but it still introduces a mathematical bias against lower rated players...

I will try and play some FIDE rated ones to objectively see how the rating moves there. End of the day its just a number!

[NickFaulks]

A simple simulation on excel shows that the people who are high rated end up doing less effort overall to maintain their rating even when drawing against someone far lower rated than them!

What?

[Roger de Coverly]

A simple simulation on excel shows that the people who are high rated end up doing less effort overall to maintain their rating even when drawing against someone far lower rated than them!

I think you need to explain your reasoning carefully. If you look at your opponents at Frome, they lost the points that you gained.

There's a well known Grandmaster whose rating has declined over the years. Some would attribute this to his willingness to accept draws against all comers.

[Richard Bates]

Hmm. Seems a bit unfair that if I draw against someone who is 90 points higher rated than me I get 2 points for it! Meaning wins against higher rated players are rewarded but draws are not.

Eh? Both are rewarded, but wins are rewarded more.

[Arnav Sud]

Its fine guys. For a 4 digit rating, grinding a draw against a 200 points higher rated opponent, after four hours at the board and then given 4 points for it seems a little less satisfactory to me personally. Just my opinion.

Let's chill

[David Shepherd]

In terms of FIDE rating an example of how the system works is as follows:

Player A is rated 2000 and player B 2200, K is 40 - if they play a game and player A wins she gains +30.4, but if they draw then she only gains +10.4 this seems unfair at first sight.

However suppose they play two games and the reult is 1-1, this could be achieved by a win (+30.4) and a loss (-9.6), or two draws (+10.4 x2). In both cases the gain is 20.8, which illustrates that the 10.4 is fair. It is the average of the points for a win and a loss, it is not half the amount for a win.

[Arnav Sud]

Great, thanks!

[NickFaulks]

Just my opinion.

Fair enough, you are entitled to hold any opinion you like.

I think it was the "simple simulation on excel" which puzzled your readers.

[J T Melsom]

Although these days any game can feel like a bit of a struggle, I think Arnav makes a fair point in that it doesn't always feel as if the grading system reflects the effort expended. It is not uncommon for the draw against the stronger opponent to feel like more of an achievement than the win that gives you the same grading/rating outcome.

[Arnav Sud]

Although these days any game can feel like a bit of a struggle, I think Arnav makes a fair point in that it doesn't always feel as if the grading system reflects the effort expended. It is not uncommon for the draw against the stronger opponent to feel like more of an achievement than the win that gives you the same grading/rating outcome.

That was exactly my point. In a recent congress (Cotswold) I held a draw against someone 190+ points higher than me. The game went on from 3:00pm to 7:10 pm and for 113 moves. I held this position as White - (I knew I couldn't win) - but the opponent couldn't find the continuation. After the game a rough check revealed that I would get 4.6 points for it and I just deflated! Anyhow - here's the position - enjoy!
8/8/8/1p4rP/p1k5/3p4/8/1K3R2 w - - 0 56

[MartinCarpenter]

Impressive 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.).