- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
The percentages I posted are not statistics, they are calculated using this formula
Win Expectancy = 1 / (10^((OpponentRating-YourRating)/400)+1). Which is the same formula used by RHP ( FAQ ).
Also I was off on one of my percentages, 200 rating difference should be 76% not 75%. I think the rest are correct, but as I said I recalled them all from memory.
I am pretty sure RHP uses the Elo rating system so these percentages should apply.
Originally posted by Maxime FerlatteIt isn't logical that this should be the case. About 50% would be two people who have about the same understanding and vision in chess. If you are clearly superior, then you should win pretty much all the time.
How often does the inferior player win?
Less than half the time.
But it doesn't happen that way.
Originally posted by EladarGood sir, how is my statement not logical, it is pretty darn logical. If you're better than someone, you will win more than half the games. Which is by all means not nearly ''winning all the time''. If you lose all the time against this player, your not clearly better than he is. Don't use ratings to judge if you're better than someone. My blitz rating on ICC is in the 1300s, because I pretty much only play when I'm drunk. But when I cream someone 1400, I bet that he's like.... wow! I can't believe I lost to this inferior player! Many people don't take blitz seriously so their ratings fluctuate a lot between the caring/not caring phases.
It isn't logical that this should be the case. About 50% would be two people who have about the same understanding and vision in chess. If you are clearly superior, then you should win pretty much all the time.
But it doesn't happen that way.
Even if you do lose your only two games against a truly inferior player, it's not even a big surprise statistically. For example, let's say you're 100 elo higher :
Chance to lose one game 36% ( I think)
Chance to lose 3 games in a row 36% x 36% = about 13%
Combine that 13% with the odds you're playing a good player who doesn't care much about his rating, and it should happen often enough.
Turn it around to explain why you win against higher rated players.
The good thing about chess is that every game is a new game and the weaker player always has a chance of beating the stronger. This is because as humans there are always a number of variables at work (being rushed, having a bad day, underestimating the opponent etc) which may help to lead to that all important blunder. And when the weaker player wins he or she has stamped their superiority for that game at least. I don't pretend to be a strong player myself and win or lose I enjoy the game. Of course I would rather win than lose but assuming that a player's ratings are accurate I have to accept that the stronger player will more often than not beat me but maybe not in the game I'm playing at the moment😉
Originally posted by Eladartwo seperate ideas. Save your annotated games to a database named.. idk.. eladars annotated hippo games or w/e. Once you have all your games stored there you can do the games to book function and create an actual book. Save it with a similar name and then have fritz run that as its opening book. good way to train your opening.
I'm not an anti computer person. I was just attempting to create a computer aided opening tree, a tree that would eventually lead to complete games.
I have a feeling that Chess Base Light and Fritz 12 could help, but I'm not sure how to save my Fritz analyzed games, other than writing them down on paper. It would be nice if I could save them directly to something along with the analysis.
I'm afraid I'm a bit an old person who doesn't know how to deal with computers very well. I can do what I can do. I don't know how to work the program yet. I'll need to play around with it or have someone walk me through it. I'll probably play around with it, get frustrated, then have someone walk me through it. That's generally how things go.
This thread is interesting...not in the explanations of "how often the inferior player wins"
instead...its interesting to see so many so willing, to believe they've been the weaker
player.
Tell me, what makes the "inferior" player?
Something he doesn't see?
Practice he hasn't had? ... 😉
Points he hasn't earned? ...😞
The game he hasn't won?
Or is it that feeling he gets, right before... telling him he's not the alpha here...
...Maybe the inferior player is inferior, only if he feels that way.
-GIN
Originally posted by NowakowskiI certainly am inferior to Carlsen. And it's not just in my mind.
This thread is interesting...not in the explanations of "how often the inferior player wins"
instead...its interesting to see so many so willing, to believe they've been the weaker
player.
Tell me, what makes the "inferior" player?
Something he doesn't see?
Practice he hasn't had? ... 😉
Points he hasn't earned? ...😞
The ga ...[text shortened]...
...Maybe the inferior player is inferior, only if he feels that way.
-GIN
But you have a valid point, sometimes the diference is so slight that "being inferior" has no meaning.