Relative meaning of Ratings

April 2011 Banded Quartets I 1800+ is a tournament I entered and which has just started.I've wondered for some time about the Relative meaning of Ratings in the sense that a 2200 player with an Opponent Average Rating of 1500 say, is not as strong as another 2200 with an OAR of 1900.And that the percentage of wins to total games played is also an indication besides that shown by the Rating.
In my Group 1 I have,lucky me!, tigerking with a Rating of 2259,an OAR of 1584 and 79%; coneybrush with a Rating of 2152,an OAR of 1864 and 89%; and doco Rated 2007,OAR of 1552 and 67%. On these 2 other indicators I would say that coneybrush is clearly the stronger of the 3. Any opinions?

Originally posted by ptriple42
April 2011 Banded Quartets I 1800+ is a tournament I entered and which has just started.I've wondered for some time about the Relative meaning of Ratings in the sense that a 2200 player with an Opponent Average Rating of 1500 say, is not as strong as another 2200 with an OAR of 1900.And that the percentage of wins to total games played is also an indicatio ...[text shortened]... 2 other indicators I would say that coneybrush is clearly the stronger of the 3. Any opinions?

A player with a low average opponent rating is probably just a player who enters a lot of tournaments and thus meets a lot of 1100 players. A 2200 rating is an indication that they are actually 2200. If they weren't then they wouldn't have that grade...

That is obvious but you missed the yardsticks I'm using in the comparison...

Originally posted by ptriple42
That is obvious but you missed the yardsticks I'm using in the comparison...

Two children; one is 180 cm tall and has grown 5cm per year in the last 3 years, the other is 175 cm tall but has grown 10 cm per year for the last 3 years.

Who is tallest?

All ratings are relative by definition.
If I understand ptriple correct then what he talks about is sort of a performance rating.

Originally posted by ptriple42
April 2011 Banded Quartets I 1800+ is a tournament I entered and which has just started.I've wondered for some time about the Relative meaning of Ratings in the sense that a 2200 player with an Opponent Average Rating of 1500 say, is not as strong as another 2200 with an OAR of 1900.And that the percentage of wins to total games played is also an indicatio ...[text shortened]... 2 other indicators I would say that coneybrush is clearly the stronger of the 3. Any opinions?

One thing you might want to take into account is past performance and behaviour. For example, Tigerking has been top of the player tables and won the site championship last year (I am not sure if that has been awarded or whether they are still fannying about with anti-cheat tests or whatever). He also dumped a load of games when this year's championship was about to kick off, presumably to clear the decks in preparation for the first round. That last fact suggests he is currently undervalued as a stock broker might say. Do the same sort of research on the other players and you might have a more accurate assessment of their strength. Or not.

Originally posted by Diophantus
One thing you might want to take into account is past performance and behaviour. For example, Tigerking has been top of the player tables and won the site championship last year (I am not sure if that has been awarded or whether they are still fannying about with anti-cheat tests or whatever). He also dumped a load of games when this year's championship w ...[text shortened]... h on the other players and you might have a more accurate assessment of their strength. Or not.

You are mentioning other factors which have a bearing on the relative(as opposed to absolute) value of the Ratings.Yes,tigerking has 64 losses by timeout out of a total of 88,and they are not because he ran out of time but for other reasons,as you mention.Coneybrush has 5 timeout losses out of a total of 12.Both sets of figures add quite a bit to their ratings in my opinion.Also, of coneybrush's last 6 losses, 3 are clearly lapses of attention-another factor that detracts from his rating but not his "chess quality",so to speak.
All this convinces me that you must look at several factors, not just the rating, to assess the strength of any player.

Originally posted by ptriple42
You are mentioning other factors which have a bearing on the relative(as opposed to absolute) value of the Ratings.

You won't find an absolute measure of ability in ratings, no matter which rating system you look at. All are relative and only relevant to the player pool they are generated by. So RHP ratings tell you how likely you are to lose to Tigerking (or beat him, let's look on the bright side) in a statistical sense but nothing about his actual strength in absolute terms or compared to other player pools. So it is no good looking at a RHP player's rating and thinking they are master strength for instance, they might be then again they might just be lucky!

I'm not too sure if looking at a players average grade of
opponents is an accurate way of indicating their strength.

Too many other factors involved.
Some of the lads they have beaten may be sandbaggers.
They may have timed out a load of games v weaker players.
They be a may teacher/coach in a club playing a load of 1400 players.
Basically what I'm saying is the RHP grading system is so squint
it's hard to judge a real strength.

Their 2000+ grades simply tell me they don't make the silly blunders
that plague this site.

If I were you...

tigerking 2259
coneybrush 2152
doco 2007
ptriple42 1894

Nobody in that group have played each other before.

Look at their games, do they take risks v lower graded players?

What postions they agree a draw in? Try and establish a style.
(Good chance you will get a rare open Sicilian v Coneybrush.)

Don't get into a blitz with any of them.

If by chance you manage to win a game and the other is still in progress
post it in the forum making sure they know. This will jack them off and
try harder (too hard) in the other game.

Do not under any circumstances offer a draw.
You are lowest graded player in that section, use your grade.
If they offer you a draw then take a time out and give the postion
a 100% going over.

When a higher rated player offers a lower rated player a draw
the higher rated player is usually losing.

The others will try to beat you up and get you out of the way as quickly
as possible so they can concentrate on each other. Don't let this happen.
Stay with them, keep it tight, they will be expecting a blunder, the longer
the game goes then there is a good chance they may take a risk and
try and get a blunder out of you.

Good Luck.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I'm not too sure if looking at a players average grade of
opponents is an accurate way of indicating their strength.

Too many other factors involved.
Some of the lads they have beaten may be sandbaggers.
They may have timed out a load of games v weaker players.
They be a may teacher/coach in a club playing a load of 1400 players.
Basically wha ...[text shortened]... is a good chance they may take a risk and
try and get a blunder out of you.

Good Luck.

This is good advice.

Personally, my rating tends to go up slightly when I play higher rated players, and it tends to dip a bit when I play lower-rated players.

It should be irrelevant, as the formula already accounts for this, but the bottom line is that I gain little and risk much in terms of ratings against lower rated players, and vice versa for higher rated players.

I never decline challenges (unless the person has been less than civil somehow, and I don't remember that actually happening yet), and most of the challenges I get are people below me.

I understand people who only want to play higher-rated players at a very superficial level, but it does not take a rocket scientist to determine that if everyone had that attitude, no games would ever take place.

Besides, there were a lot of higher rated players who spent time with me when I started out USCF OTB 1388 back in the day, and I feel like I am morally obliged to pay it forward.

TMALSS, I'm not sure the opponent average makes that much of a difference.

Thanks GP for the advice and wish.I doubt I would post here a win against them-I'm of the school that believes in chess as pure competition,devoid of external factors or tricks.As for the importance or not of the Opp.Avr.Rating I seem to remember some thread about Skeeter and how she had reached No.1, not having played any of the other top players,and having a somewhat low OAR...
My attitude is: I'm 1894 but could be worth 1950 who knows? So I should still get a drubbing from tigerking- but maybe not...;should be able to fight it out with coneybrush(don't ask me why), and with doco...what's 50 or 100 points difference?😉

Edit: Sorry about the confusion of posters.I've used my father's(c antunes) account who is away for a couple of days and who asked me to make a couple of moves he had left behind.I forgot I was still under his name.
ptriple42

I've always been of the opinion that as soon as the
first move is made all grades are equal.

It's not 'tricks'. Tricks it what you do on the board.
It's gamesmanship and all is fair in that dept.

Pull every scam off board you can, booking up on openings is a kind of scam.

The game however is sacred, you must respect the actual playing of the game
(and yourself.)

OK new plans.

Plan A.
Resign both games to TigerKing right away.
This will set the other two thinking you and TK have come to deal.
They will resign both their games v you to get back at TK.

Plan B
PM each player saying the other two players have approached
you offering you a draw if you will try their hardest against the lad you PM.
It won't do you any harm having the three of them at each other's throats.

Plan C
If TK opens 1.e4 play 1.e4 v Coneybrush, wait for his reply and send that to TK.
Keep doing this for the whole game and TK will be playing CB through you.
If anyone cottons on to this claim it was a coincidence.
If they don't believe you tell them Mad Rook told you to do it.

Plan D
Is illegal in some countries so we won't discuss that one.

Plan E
Will get you 300 grading points but you need a willing female partner,
a camera and a hotel room. (send PM plus £500 if interested.)

(PS: don't underestimate Coneybrush he is a good classical player,
retired has loads of time on his hands.)

I shall follow the games with great interest.

Good Luck.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I've always been of the opinion that as soon as the
first move is made all grades are equal.

It's not 'tricks'. Tricks it what you do on the board.
It's gamesmanship and all is fair in that dept.

Pull every scam off board you can, booking up on openings is a kind of scam.

The game however is sacred, you must respect the actual playing of the g ...[text shortened]... of time on his hands.)

I shall follow the games with great interest.

Good Luck.

GP, you're something else as you so cleverly exploit😉 You left the best for last so I've gone for Plan E (requested is on its way,pse advise when implemented;photos copied to me please...)

It would be mighty arrogant to underestimate a player with a higher rating than me and I'm not. We'll just see. Thanks for your interest.

On a side issue: I'm recording my blunders and I've made one a month in the past 4 months.How good or bad is that?

One blunder a month is way below average for this site so keep it up.

Mind you there are blunders and there are blunders.

Drop a piece v an -1600 and you can still fight on.

One silly pawn move ceeding just a square to the lads you will
be playing can be fatal.

You have posted under your dad's name again.

You have invented Plan G.
Posting under different names to confuse everyone.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
One blunder a month is way below average for this site so keep it up.

Mind you there are blunders and there are blunders.

Drop a piece v an -1600 and you can still fight on.

One silly pawn move ceeding just a square to the lads you will
be playing can be fatal.

You have posted under your dad's name again.

You have invented Plan G.
Posting under different names to confuse everyone.

I was referring to a fatal blunder, one that makes you lose the game.Ok,I've found that no matter how long I look at a position, sometimes I just don't see the mistake I'm about to make- seeing it however 2 seconds after clicking the button. Some people are of the opinion that if you take 7 days to make a move it's ridiculous that your own blunder can escape your detection.In your vast experience what do you think.

I initiated this thread,I'm posting under myself,my dad is c antunes - tell me about this Plan G again?