(Also at that level ratings adjust up and down more slowly). Take some scholastic kid rated 1100 and due to how quickly these kids learn, (not to mention the problems they have with scholastic ratings to begin with) his rating will most likely be less accurate than a 2350 life master. Now of course this is if the two ratings are reliable. Meaning in a match of 10 games they would be expected to score about 6.5 At the base of it is the rating system (which is just a statistics formula) so it's helpful to know what the statistics actually are given a difference in ratings, regardless of if we're talking about 1400-1600 or 2200-2400 etc.ġ00 points is a 64% chance for the stronger player. How would you rank all these Class A, B, C, D, E players? Both know soooo many openings and theories-and yet you can always bet on the 2700 to pull the win.
Considering both are GMs, both have had years of training and experience. It makes me really shocked when I find that a 2500 can never beat a 2700. Is it really that sensitive at that high level? I remember GM Mamedyarov (2763) talking about how another GM (~2600), should not have defeated him because he was playing the strength of a 2600. Is it a lengthy process for one to go from 1600-1800 or is that simply a matter of learning a few more positions? What I really wonder is, what are the differences between say a 1600 and an 1800 compared to a 2000 player. I can't really comment on higher than 1400. 1300-1400 players seem to mostly make more mistakes rather than blunders and usually lose due to one or two mistakes (or blunders) in a game.
1200-1300 players make blunders a lot but not as significant. I always felt like 900-1200 are players who often make blunders and can be similar in skill. When you are playing on do you really feel there is a significance in 100 point rating higher or lower than your opponent?
0 kommentar(er)
