Timeline for Steely, grim perseverance in the face of certain destruction
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2018 at 3:28 | vote | accept | thb | ||
| Jun 6, 2016 at 12:25 | comment | added | Scounged | The 200-400 interval is meant to take into account things such as daily form. A chess player's rating is only some sort of average measurement of strength. Usually they can play both much better and much worse than their rating. So an opponent 100 points above you can still play worse in one single game than you normally do, but this is far less likely to happen if you're facing someone 200 points above you. The 200 number as alower bound is to ensure that you actually have to play well to win against them, and not just take them on one of their bad days. | |
| Jun 6, 2016 at 12:02 | comment | added | BlindKungFuMaster | I think 200-400 is too much. 100-200 is more like it. When you get crushed, you don't actually learn much. It has to make a difference whether you are playing well or not. What do you learn when you box against Mike Tyson? Only that you are deficient in every way and no single thing would have made a difference. | |
| Jun 5, 2016 at 12:55 | comment | added | thb | Well, it looks as though some readers did not care for my question, for some reason which is opaque to me. Maybe the title was too colorful. Maybe the question was too opinion-based (though chess.SE often seems a bit more opinion-based than do other SE sites). Sorry to drag your useful answer down with the question, at any rate. +1 | |
| Jun 5, 2016 at 12:25 | history | answered | Scounged | CC BY-SA 3.0 |