In the sports world, there are any number of comparisons. The local baseball team leads the National League in a number of batting categories. And oddly enough, they also lead the league in number of times being shut out. Why is that? They beat up on weaker pitchers, the 2000's, and get killed by the great pitchers, the 2600's. I would suggest their league leading ratings are not an accurate barometer of their strength and are greatly inflated by beating up on weaker opposition.

First, you can't draw a line at 2700, you might as well draw it at 2680 or 2720; by drawing the line at the "psychological" 2700 line, you are repeating and enforcing the mental blockade, if even as an observer.

and second,

"then prove they aren't really 2700's when they start playing 2700's" - is an unintelligible and misleading sentence, eg in that an absolute standard is merely illusive, and would be better "worded" if you'd comment on the lacking "mettle" and attitude with which those who "kill 2600's" enter the game against the top tier, which is as usual, and as <Dom> confirmed in his post at a gamepage, a 90% psychological issue.

Sticking, attaching it all to numbers is simply misleading, and to again state this as clear as I possibly can, psychology is the major determinant.

As it well should.

Question:

2700 line
v 2700 barrier

which do you prefer?

aren't there "lines" and "barriers" at 2679, 2669, 2649, 2644, 2610 ?

Another factor is consistency. Some people, like me, can beat a 2300 and then lose to a 1300: inconsistent. Others *always* beat lower-graded opponents and always lose to significantly higher ones, and tend to draw - or alternate wins and losses if they're that kind of player - against opponents of similar rating.

Just for laughs, I looked at my statistics for one of my CC sites that keeps detailed breakdowns of opponent ratings and results. Being CC, the numbers are inflated relative to OTB, so let's just talk relative differences. I think any "ratings fear" I might experience would be of less import in CC due to the slower pace of the game, which is why I decided to look.

Out of about 69 total games at this particular site, a rough breakdown looks something like this:

Opponent rated 200 points or more lower (+28 =1 -1)

Opponent rated less than 200 points lower (+12 =0 -1)

Opponent rated up to 150 points higher (+3 =3 -6)

Opponent rated more than 150 points higher (+0 =1 -11)

heh

I've been thinking some more on this topic/issue, as I encountered it also non-stop in other sports, being at top- or (low-) amateur level, passively (observer) and actively as a player -- and there's indeed truth in what Ohio said, and Larry just now, and Dom and I seem to be on a par, roughly (get the pun?), at the moment.

But as I see and understand it now, it all depends on your point of view, the angle from which you look at this phenomenon, and as I later return to point out, this tends to move to the realm of semantics and philosphy on one hand, and shifting back and forth into pure psychologyu, then back again to "exact science".

Personally I tend to look (more) at atatistics and "numbers" as incentives to prove them wrong, if you will, than to lean to see them confirmed, though over time the new lists tend to be rather similar to the previous, say quarterly, "release"... Yet there are always shifts and younger players sky-rocketing up the rankings, some plummeting down again, for a variety of reasons we really can't judge very well. An interesting consideration/hypothetical (but familiar) case may be that 14 year old kid suddenly gaining over 100 points in a year, not because he has suddenly improved that much on his openings (they mainly play blitz online) but primarily is gaining confidence in his ability, or using this game to humiliate other people, learns to <love> WINNING and <hate> losing, through indeed the practise, which unlocks enormous potential in the young developing human, and works as a combat tool in that the opposition is told numerous times how "a tremendous surge up the rankings this kid Johnny Kah is having," with devastating effect on youngsters who are not (yet) that confident in their growth potential, perhaps they never will, and will excel in other walks of life/sport.

That's how many balls start rolling, and others follow different paths.

Anyhoo, my initial thought just before posting was to stress that considering the various points of view and the many many variables and dynamic factors are involved, perhaps not rendering it appropriate to make definitive statements on meaning- and lack of- in rating comparisons of btw many kinds.

Bit of a semantic and philosophical point; give some here, lose some there, argument wise.

Likely a very well conducted investigation in comparative rating interpretation, will reveal more than it covers up, one would hope/expect.

ALOHA!

As <Dom> said earlier: <The mistake is thinking that 2300-ness is a fixed attribute, rather than a statistic derived from previous games.>

That is the essence of it, and sufficient, provided in the "hands" of one who knows and (takes the time to-) understand.

And of course if a player spends years actively playing and keeps a rating in the 2300's, he's "a 2300 player", no argument.

But there being a "typical"....

Semantica in Optima Forma.

Anyway, I thought of an experiment. We take online players (blitz, CC, whatever time control you like) with established ratings. We tell them we are testing a new rating system and so in the first batch of games there will be no rating information on their opponents. In the next phase, we change all the opponent "names" and give them real rating info, but they are actually playing the same opponents. We could also throw in a phase with phony ratings info if desired.

One other point: 'weak' players - below some arbitrary level - probably play in much the same way whoever they happen to be playing. The players at issue here are good enough to be big fish in a small pond, but weak enough to be minnows amongs the sharks.

I've noticed how timidly 2300 players tend to be against GMs, especially top GMs. But the same applies further down the range.

<Fear of a reputation?> Smack on the button... I was just thinking of describing it as "a [natural] tendency, inclination, urge, craving even, to <not> upset the established order, or hierarchy"

conformity, both consciously and subconsciously.

It's indeed widespread and runs very deep.

The big guys that reach the apex in a sport, always have the conviction, and voiced it, that they were, for an X number of years, destined to rule the game. (Botwinnik, Aljechin)

I belong here, you belong down there.

Among the "lower tiers" the occasional "upset" is even weaved in by the subconscious, if only sparingly, to not shake the system too much.

Especially after the age of 25, people tend to fit their niche, and stay there comfortably.

Actually, behavioral and developmental concepts like compliance, identification and internalization also play a role, and social psychological pressure is all and everywhere around us.

Maybe I am taking this a tad too far now...

http://www.bobby-fischer.net/Bobby_...

About mid-tournament, Fischer played a couple of dozen speed chess with the presumptive favorite and crushed him repeatedly:

First, Sam Collins has been 'shadowing' Chuky. After a draw with Grischuk in Rnd 1, he reeled off a string of wins - finally losing in rnd 9 (to Hansen of Denmark), the same day that Chuky's streak ended. Today, his Mongolian opponent had no title, despite playing top board on a team with GM and IMs on lower boards.

At the gamepage you say (abbr. quote): "Far from perfect play ..."

I say: "Thank goodness"

Complete sentence: "Far from perfect play, yet still somehow brilliant." Indeed, and incredibly tenacious, obsessing with getting those pawn to the other side of the board, <some>how, through any and all means possible, and <Sammy Collins> manages to do so!

Thusfar haven't as much as even booted up my engine to "check" this game, and I am again inclined to say: "Thank goodness."

It obviously didn't look as awful as it does now...

Good grief

Sounds too good to be true.

Mr. Conspiracy theorist

Hell you may be right. Let's ask Collins or Heidenfeld.

Funny german name for an Irishman though, and he grabbed a b-pawn against Karjakin in the first round, after which he got immediately B-filed and lost on the spot...

Now you sound like me.

As the Christopher Lloyd character in the ancient TV show Taxi once said: "Uh, am I here?"

I think I'm usually here.