Author: Matt Frank
Date: 15:34:01 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
>PS. Another example. I played a guy who was not rated, but should have been >about 100 to 150 points below me at lunch time at G30 for a half a year. I won >every game except the last one (where I had a choice of 2 moves and picked the >wrong one, moving quickly will get you everytime). So, although he played strong >and often had me in tight positions (he was up material about a third of the >time), I managed to squeeze out (barely in a lot of cases). According to the >formulas, his rating should have been about 850 points lower than mine. But the >truth of the matter is that he just didn't have my number. They were almost >always close games. I never once blew him out. This was a sample set of over a >hundred games which bucked the ratings odds. Look at Anand vs. Karpov. Ratings >are a very crude metric, but they tend to mean everything once they are 500 >points apart. Really, all I can say to this is that the sample size is entirely too puny. And this topic is really interesting anecdotal evidence, yet far from convincing. Even the Anand--Karpov results you quoted earlier are based on a small sample size with a large margin of error. Matt Frank
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.