Alzheimer gone...!

Generally speaking, when someone plays hundreds of games and their win percentage is 20 points higher than the best people ever to play the game, something strange might be afoot.

For instance a record of 451 -88 =249 would be piss-poor for some of the 2000+ players here.

Originally posted by Thabtos
Generally speaking, when someone plays hundreds of games and their win percentage is 20 points higher than the best people ever to play the game, something strange might be afoot. For instance a record of 451 -88 =249 would be piss-poor for some of the 2000+ players here.

Doesn't it somehow relate to the quality of opponent?

Originally posted by atticus2
Doesn't it somehow relate to the quality of opponent?

Kind of hyperbole on my part. But I think playing 800+ games with only 3-4 losses seems kind of suspect to me. Everybody has bad days.

Originally posted by Thabtos
Generally speaking, when someone plays hundreds of games and their win percentage is 20 points higher than the best people ever to play the game, something strange might be afoot.

For instance a record of 451 -88 =249 would be piss-poor for some of the 2000+ players here.

a high winning percentage only means that you haven't played against your peers, but instead much weaker opponents. on average. a 50% score means you've been playing equal opposition, and anything less than that means you've been playing higher rated opponents.

in open tournaments a high rated player normally gets only lower rated opponents until the last rounds. so the winning percentages end up on the high side for all strong players.

Originally posted by Thabtos
...playing 800+ games with only 3-4 losses seems kind of suspect to me. Everybody has bad days.

Everyone has bad days, indeed. And even the best makes mistakes, sometimes outright blunders. So you're right to be sceptical of single figure losses in 800+ games, even from 400+ games in here.

Why? Well, quite simply, even in the absence of any other evidence, one knows from those banned that some players use engines. By obvious deduction, they will be among the more highly-rated players. So it follows that those who are also highly rated, myself included, must have met and beaten engines on the way up. So if your losses are in single figures, and your draws few too, after >100 games, you must be beating engines pretty regularly. Now that simply isn't possible.

Engines can be held sometimes by a competent, well-tutored player; occasionally beaten too if the engine is in the hands of a weak player. I've managed both, aided by good fortune in some cases. But there is no possibility in here that, unaided and taking opponents as they come, one can rack up >400 games, achieve a high rating, and concede only a handful of losses.

Originally posted by Thabtos


For instance a record of 451 -88 =249 would be piss-poor for some of the 2000+ players here.

Of course, most of them don't play opponents whose average rating is somewhere in the 2600s.

Originally posted by Thabtos
Kind of hyperbole on my part. But I think playing 800+ games with only 3-4 losses seems kind of suspect to me. Everybody has bad days.

I have had some extra bad days around if anyone would like to have some. I'm always willing to share.😕

One (maybe naive?) question: If you only play much lower quality opponents your rating is going to be asymptotic at about 600 points beyond the rating of your opponents. (do we see any 2200's playing only up to 1600's?)