Originally posted by sbacat
Back to the original point, I'm currently in a game with a 2100+ player and we just passed move 32. I'd estimate he's at least 5 if not 10 moves away from winning. To get a better metric of how many moves a stronger player should have to mate in, could we not randomly select say 50 completed games from the 2009 (or 2008, for that matter) Championship that hav ...[text shortened]... ch game was at least trying to win, rather than simply avoid mate.
Just a thought,
Steve
the problem with that which i see is that the stronger player in those games (assuming they win) won't be caring that much about how many moves it takes to win but just to get the win. i don't know about you but every time i play if i see a chance to take a piece i'll take it rather than trying to gamble and win the game sooner, i'll take the piece and try to build an attack around my advantage, sometimes that leads to a lot of trading where i can take full advantage of my knight or even a pawn capture. with this tourney you're really forced to go for the balls, you may end up losing and you probably at some point will have to make a sack you wouldn't normally make to open up the game.
plus it would be a lot of work, you really would have to look at a lot of games at each rating gap to make it fair. and some of the ratings would've changed, for example a new player is 1300 at the start and loses to a 1700 player in 50 moves but when i look at the game the new player has improved to 1500. see what i mean?
i think the way i'm working out the targets is the fairest and indeed the easiest way it is now, i'm just not sure on the exact formula or if it should be a dual or not. i'll see how the other games turn out before deciding anything, i've been looking at a few of them and i wouldn't be surprised if out of the 12 games it was 6-6 between the higher and lower rated players. a 8-4 result might even make me change the formula for the next round, i don't know.