IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:45 am
I think an important question to ask in this context is "underrated relative to what?".
I think that's right.
I've heard some people say "everyone is underrated" - clearly that can't be true. Others have said "everyone is underrated compared to the ECF system". I'm not sure that's true; they only think that because if you apply the conversion formula, then it doesn't work as well as it might. In that case, the fault is with the formula, and not the rating system. It's not obvious to me why the success of the formula would be dependent on the number of games put into the system.
David Sedgwick wrote: ↑
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:38 am
Nick Burrows wrote: ↑
Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:11 am
David Sedgwick wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:28 pm
I keep hearing that English adults don't like playing English juniors because the latter are underrated. This is usually attributed to their not playing many FIDE rated games compared with their overseas conterparts.
I also keep hearing that, if English juniors don't do as well in World and European Youth Championships as hoped, it is because their opponents are (even more) underrated.
Something leads me to think that these two hypotheses cannot both be right.
Why not? English adult tournament players have established grades based on more games, and lose points against (young) players with relatively unestablished grades.
English juniors then play in tournaments with a high percentage of players who are yet to have the same opportunity to take Fide points off adult players, and so take them off the English players. That is perfectly logical.
If English players are underrated because they play few rated games, as per Hypothesis 1, then I fail to see how their counterparts from countries where more games are rated will have had fewer opportunities to play adults.
However, I am speculating. I thank those who are doing proper research, or have commissioned it.
If I may be permitted to join in with the speculation, I came to the same conclusion as David Sedgwick, which as regular readers of this Forum will know, is not necessarily an everyday occurrence. I do think it is to do with speed of improvement, which is much higher in Eastern Europe than it is in England.
Incidentally, Eastern Europe and India are places normally charged with having juniors with ratings that are lower than they should be. One argument that used to be prevalent in England is that juniors should avoid getting a FIDE-rating and coming on the list at 1001 or near to it, because it's "impossible" for them to then get to 2500+. This doesn't seem to have been an issue in countries like Armenia, where apparently there is less rated chess, but they seem very successful in generating strong players at junior and adult level. Nor does it seem to be an issue in India, which is consistently developing prodigies at the moment.