Author: Terry Presgrove
Date: 14:35:40 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 16:38:55, Matt Frank wrote: > >Diff W L D >300 2 12 >400 2 11 1 >500 9 > >Out of the 2 wins and a draw at the 400 point differential, all 3 of them were >from up and coming young turks whose ratings are lower than their playing >ability. Of course, this is too small of a sample set to be taken seriously, but >it does support my theory. > >KarinsDad > >Huh? If they are up and coming turks then that means by definition that the >rating differetial is closer than 400, that does not support your contention, >does it? In fact at an actual, stable (if this is so) 300 pt difference you >would expect 8.5-1.5, at 400 9-1, and at 500 9.5-.5. Therefore at 300 the score >is dead on with 2 wins and 12 losses = Higher rated .857 to lower rated .143, >and for 400 pts diff, 2 wins and 11 losses and 1 draw we have Higher = .821 to >lower .179, and you have already told us why, and for 500 pts difference we have >9 losses compared to 9.5-.5 after 10, within the margin of error. > >Matt Frank I don't think we're that far apart on agreement that at 500 pts defferential the lower rated player winning is very rare at best but what about computers? This is the crux of the question and the curiosity that prompted the original thread to begin with . Perhaps Enrique or some other testers could shed light on this? Does the rating differential lessen with computers as suggested in an earlier thread to say around 375 or does it indeed correlate to the 500pt.range.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.