Author: KarinsDad
Date: 17:42:35 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 It supports my theory (in a limited way) since the table really should have read: Diff W L D 250 2 ? 1 300 2 12 400 11 500 9 since the 2 young players in question are rated about 150 to 200 points below their ability. Twenty games with a 400 to 500 differential resulted in (for all intents and purposes) 0 wins. Not even a draw from a normal player. Obviously, the sample set is WAY too small. I don't deny that. I was just curious as to what had happened recently in some open tournaments. That's all. KarinsDad PS. What would a large enough sample set be? 500 games, 1000 games, 10,000 games? If at 10,000 games, you had 122 wins from the lower rated players with a 500 point differential when the formula predicts 500, would that be a statistically large enough sample for you to understand that the formula does not work at greater ranges?
This page took 0.01 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.