Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 23:03:07 07/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
What do you think would be the result of the following thought experiment: You get 5 games played by a player X rated 1500 against 5 different opponents. Their ratings range from 1300 to 1700. Now hand these games to a GM, but don't tell him the rating of player X nor tell the ratings of his opponent. Now ask the GM what he thinks is the playing strength of player X. I don't know about you, but my estimate of the rating could wind up being almost anything. I would have no point of reference for judging their playing strength. I would encounter long series of blunders by both sides in these games and would not have a clue about how to assign a number representing how strong player X is. I can't tell the difference between a 1400 and a 1600 rated player with any kind of reliability. They both get bad ideas, but one may get "better" bad ideas than the other. How do you rate that? The problem is perhaps I'm too high rated (2200+). Maybe if I was another C-player I could make a better estimate! Judging a peer may be more accurate? But then perhaps ego, 20-20 hindsight, etc. might come into play and the C-player would still be way off. I think a GM would have a tougher time than I would. How does a C-player think? That's a toughy. Impressions are a poor yardstick for estimating anything. An GM could be on the money, but could also be way off. His estimate would certainly vary with his mood, how much rest he got, rust, etc. just like his playing strength varies for the same reasons. There is no substitute for an objective determination.
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.