- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19785
rhp rating wise, what would be a shock win?
the 2009 championship tournament thread got me thinking.
what would you consider a shock win or lose?
if i lost to someone rated 200 below me i wouldn't think anything of it but if i won a game 200 points above i would consider it quite a win. is this because generally as you go down in ratings it become less of a shock if the lower rated person wins because of the lesser gaps in playing strength as apposed to when the ratings gets higher?
I reckon anyone 1400 or below can lose to 300-400 below them unless they have very few games in progress
My theory makes it less likely as your rating grows as your knowledge and capability plus the likelyhood of less games in progress make so. eg 2000 can lose to 1800 but highly unlikely to sub 1700
Originally posted by trev33I would be shocked to see the winner actually made of flesh 😲 O, disgusting !!!
rhp rating wise, what would be a shock win?
the 2009 championship tournament thread got me thinking.
what would you consider a shock win or lose?
if i lost to someone rated 200 below me i wouldn't think anything of it but if i won a game 200 points above i would consider it quite a win. is this because generally as you go down in ratings it become ...[text shortened]... wins because of the lesser gaps in playing strength as apposed to when the ratings gets higher?
Originally posted by MctaytoYeah. But the main reason for that is that the difference (i. e. time to evolve from-to) between 1000-1400 is way smaller than say between 1600-2000
I reckon anyone 1400 or below can lose to 300-400 below them unless they have very few games in progress
My theory makes it less likely as your rating grows as your knowledge and capability plus the likelyhood of less games in progress make so. eg 2000 can lose to 1800 but highly unlikely to sub 1700
At the club this weekend a 2200 player played a 1400 player and allowed white to play a fried liver attack and the 2200 player lost. 800 pts different. The 1400 is a kid who has been playing for only a year, but he is doing very well with progress. Even drew a 1900 in this tournament. Beating a 2200 player after only one year of playing is very farfetched, but not impossible.
Originally posted by kmac27Probably 2200 underestimated his opponent ? Underestimation is one of the biggest mistakes that strong(er) player can make in my opinion.
At the club this weekend a 2200 player played a 1400 player and allowed white to play a fried liver attack and the 2200 player lost. 800 pts different. The 1400 is a kid who has been playing for only a year, but he is doing very well with progress. Even drew a 1900 in this tournament. Beating a 2200 player after only one year of playing is very farfetched, but not impossible.
Originally posted by ivan2908Probably, clearly a better strategy for someone rated that much higher than his opponent is to play defensively, even if he likes sharp openings. Allowing the fried liver alone is a mistake in my opinion.
Probably 2200 underestimated his opponent ? Underestimation is one of the biggest mistakes that strong(er) player can make in my opinion.
Originally posted by trev33and im in a few lower rated tournaments and have played agressive trying to finish off fast.. and have made a mistake in 1 out of 8 games or so, next time i might have to outtheory them instead to be safe and not underestimate
rhp rating wise, what would be a shock win?
the 2009 championship tournament thread got me thinking.
what would you consider a shock win or lose?
if i lost to someone rated 200 below me i wouldn't think anything of it but if i won a game 200 points above i would consider it quite a win. is this because generally as you go down in ratings it become ...[text shortened]... wins because of the lesser gaps in playing strength as apposed to when the ratings gets higher?