Go back
How much stronger is 100 points?

How much stronger is 100 points?

Only Chess

c

USA

Joined
22 Dec 05
Moves
13780
Clock
22 Oct 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

I was thinking about this the other day, "What is the win loss record of a 1300 vs. a 1200?" If a player rated X plays another player rated X-100, how often could the former be expected to win? I plan on randomly looking at games where players play opponents rated 100 points below them, and see the win-loss ratio.

I haven't looked yet, but my hypothesis is that a player rated 100 points above his opponent is twice as strong; he should win 2 out 3 times.

If this was true, then I(1200) should be able to beat a 1300 1 out of 3 times. However, different people have different circumstances, so my results may not be accurate.

What do you think? For every hundred points your ratings increase, do you believe you are twice as strong?

Amaurote
No Name Maddox

County Doledrum

Joined
04 Feb 05
Moves
16156
Clock
22 Oct 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

The difference is immaterial between ratings lower than 1700 - the gulf between 1700 and 1800 is considerable, but the difference between 1700 and 1600 is minimal.

Bedlam

Joined
21 Apr 06
Moves
4211
Clock
22 Oct 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

4 games played at 200 points difference should go 3-1 to the higher rated player.

m

Joined
07 Sep 05
Moves
35068
Clock
22 Oct 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

And a player 100 points higher should score about 64%. So 2-1 isn't far off. The formula is in the FAQ.

z

Joined
13 Apr 06
Moves
2683
Clock
22 Oct 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

See a toy such as this one http://chess.cern.ch/ratings/elocalc.en.shtml

A 1200 player with +1250 =1300 -1400 +1200 gets :-

New rating: 1235
Performance: 1380

J

back in business

Joined
25 Aug 04
Moves
1264
Clock
22 Oct 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by chesskid001
For every hundred points your ratings increase, do you believe you are twice as strong?
no.

z

Joined
13 Apr 06
Moves
2683
Clock
22 Oct 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

If you were ranked 1200 and you played someone ranked 1300 and drew the game you were expected to achieve 0.362 so you would gain a few points.

Initial rating: 1200
Progress coefficient: K=36
Game #1: opponent=1300, result=0.5, expected=0.362, ELO gained=+4.97
New rating: 1205
Performance: 1300

DF
Lord of all beasts

searching for truth

Joined
06 Jun 06
Moves
30390
Clock
23 Oct 06
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Amaurote
The difference is immaterial between ratings lower than 1700 - the gulf between 1700 and 1800 is considerable, but the difference between 1700 and 1600 is minimal.
A rating differance of 100 points at any rating should produce statistically the same result (i.e. on 100 games the higher rated player should score 67.5 points from 100), irrespective of whether the ratings are 1000 and 1100 or 2200 and 2300, shouldn't they?

powershaker

Hinesville, GA

Joined
17 Aug 05
Moves
12481
Clock
23 Oct 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
A rating differance of 100 points at any rating should produce statistically the same result (i.e. on 100 games the higher rated player should score 67.5 points from 100), irrespective of whether the ratings are 1000 and 1100 or 2200 and 2300, shouldn't they?
If you beat someone 3-2, what would be the rating difference? I was curious. I had a match like this the other day, in Chinatown, Honolulu. At least, I won the match though. But, this guy was really good. I had to do my best.

Amaurote
No Name Maddox

County Doledrum

Joined
04 Feb 05
Moves
16156
Clock
23 Oct 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
A rating differance of 100 points at any rating should produce statistically the same result (i.e. on 100 games the higher rated player should score 67.5 points from 100), irrespective of whether the ratings are 1000 and 1100 or 2200 and 2300, shouldn't they?
I can only speak subjectively here, frankly, but I personally feel that the rating gap between 1600 and 1700 is much less material than between 1800 and 1700 - there's a theoretical gap between the latter, whereas earlier ratings seem to be determined more by concentration, gameload and psychological factors. I'm sure many people will beg to differ, but I can only vouch for my own personal experience on the site.

O

Joined
11 Sep 06
Moves
17376
Clock
23 Oct 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by powershaker
If you beat someone 3-2, what would be the rating difference? I was curious. I had a match like this the other day, in Chinatown, Honolulu. At least, I won the match though. But, this guy was really good. I had to do my best.
Scoring 60% longterm against someone would suggest you are about 50 Elo points higher than they are.

As for where 100 point gaps really make a difference...well, from a standpoint of "how often will player x beat player y," it doesn't matter (much) what the exact numbers are, just the difference in ratings. But rating points are definitely harder to get as you move out of the meaty part of the bell curve and into the extremes (particularly 2000+). It's a lot easier to go from the top 70% of all players to the top 50% than to go from the top 5% to the top 1%.

F

Joined
11 Nov 05
Moves
43938
Clock
23 Oct 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Amaurote
I can only speak subjectively here, frankly, but I personally feel that the rating gap between 1600 and 1700 is much less material than between 1800 and 1700 - there's a theoretical gap between the latter, whereas earlier ratings seem to be determined more by concentration, gameload and psychological factors. I'm sure many people will beg to differ, but I can only vouch for my own personal experience on the site.
A 1600-player against a 1700-players will have the same win/loss ratio than 1000-player against a 1100-player, or a 2000-player against a 2100-player. Statistically speaking.

But it is harder for a 1600-player to get to 1700 than it is for a 1000-player to get to 1100.

DF
Lord of all beasts

searching for truth

Joined
06 Jun 06
Moves
30390
Clock
23 Oct 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FabianFnas
A 1600-player against a 1700-players will have the same win/loss ratio than 1000-player against a 1100-player, or a 2000-player against a 2100-player. Statistically speaking.

But it is harder for a 1600-player to get to 1700 than it is for a 1000-player to get to 1100.
.... and it it well nigh impossible for a player who has been between 1800 and 2000 for decades to get to 2100.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.