Why are players in open (hourly) tournaments far stronger than players in the quick pairing pool? For example, I usually score a 50% win rate against 22-2300s in the quick pairing pool, but I constantly find myself in losing positions against 16-1700s in hourly tournaments.
Good question. For me, it ́s exactly the opposite; in the pool (Blitz 5 min) I have difficulties getting above 1600 and staying there. In my last 20 tournaments I averaged a performance of 1750, and regularly beat >1800 players (usually because they ́re berserking and I win on time). Best 5 Blitz wins: against opponents rated 2089 - 2211 (all in tournaments). I think you >2000 players tend to underestimate us 1600s :)
@Wasted_Youth When playing in tournaments, I made sure I couldnt see my opponent's rating, so I had no idea of their strength.
<Comment deleted by user>
@Wasted_Youth said in #4:
> Hmm ok, that takes care of my thesis then ;)
>
> I ́m sure that tournaments attract the cheaters and 2nd account sandbaggers; I also regularly lose there to 1200-1300 opponents who play very strongly; maybe you ́ve come up against some of that sort.
> Hmm ok, that takes care of my thesis then ;)
>
> I ́m sure that tournaments attract the cheaters and 2nd account sandbaggers; I also regularly lose there to 1200-1300 opponents who play very strongly; maybe you ́ve come up against some of that sort.
@Wasted_Youth said in #5:
>
well said. it proves the lunacy of giving two rolling turds of ratings on these online sites. if its not a bot its sandbagger. if its not a sand bagger its bot. ie ogtten to where i open an account for 20 games and see where i end up. then close it and start another. wth no over the board accountability its nothing but a shill ~
>
well said. it proves the lunacy of giving two rolling turds of ratings on these online sites. if its not a bot its sandbagger. if its not a sand bagger its bot. ie ogtten to where i open an account for 20 games and see where i end up. then close it and start another. wth no over the board accountability its nothing but a shill ~
@TheSquare - It just happened again, I beat a 2100 player in a tournament; he was berserking, but didn ́t lose on time. I didn ́t even try to shut down the board, but went for KG and mated him after 50 moves. We 1600 players are pumped to the gills with adrenaline when playing a >2000 player, which focusses the mind beautifully; the 2000ers who can see our ratings probably view us as easy meat to be disposed with as quickly as possible, which just occasionally can tip the balance in our favour.
I face the same thing. usually ( by my experience ) regular tournament players are underrated by 150-200 points when compared to pool. I believe its because of the berserk feature, as if one side berserks, the other player beats them more often than they should normally, and since <xxxx arenas/pools dont have the berserk option, so these now over-rated players ( i.e who defeat the berserking player ) lose the gained points, inflating the general pool.
That ́s an interesting theory, but I believe that two things negate it:
1. It ́s impossible to inflate the rating pool;; for everyone who gains points, others lose them. Even if 100 GMs were to register tomorrow: their ratings would rocket from the starting points, but thousands of others would take a dive.
2. The number of players who are at the moment berserking in tournaments is negligible compared to the number of players online at any given moment. Let ́s say that in a tournament with 500 players 50 of them are berserking at any one moment; there could easily be 50,000 others online. Even allowing for 10 simultaneous tournaments of that size every hour: the percentage of berserkers is 1%. Not enough to have any effect on the rating pool, even if such a thing were possible.
I ́m still convinced it ́s a psychological thing.
PS I just saw that I didn ́t reply to your idea that regular tournament players are underrated by 150-200 points when compared to the pool. I ́d go along with that, with emphasis on the "regular", but again I think it ́s a mindset thing. It certainly applies to me; usually 1550-1600 rated, but with an average performance in tournaments of 1750. It ́s because I 'm a bit of a happy-go-lucky player who ́s not really bothered about his rating; I often play in the pool when I ́m tired or distracted, or after a couple of beers late at night; that keeps my rating down. Tournaments however I only play when I ́m feeling fit and after having warmed up with a few games first; they ́re my main event. I don ́t think that this applies to the majority of tournament players, as I probably have about a 50% win rate in tournaments against similarly rated players to myself; I do lose occasionally to the odd 1300 player, just as I ́ll occasionally beat an 1800+ opponent.
1. It ́s impossible to inflate the rating pool;; for everyone who gains points, others lose them. Even if 100 GMs were to register tomorrow: their ratings would rocket from the starting points, but thousands of others would take a dive.
2. The number of players who are at the moment berserking in tournaments is negligible compared to the number of players online at any given moment. Let ́s say that in a tournament with 500 players 50 of them are berserking at any one moment; there could easily be 50,000 others online. Even allowing for 10 simultaneous tournaments of that size every hour: the percentage of berserkers is 1%. Not enough to have any effect on the rating pool, even if such a thing were possible.
I ́m still convinced it ́s a psychological thing.
PS I just saw that I didn ́t reply to your idea that regular tournament players are underrated by 150-200 points when compared to the pool. I ́d go along with that, with emphasis on the "regular", but again I think it ́s a mindset thing. It certainly applies to me; usually 1550-1600 rated, but with an average performance in tournaments of 1750. It ́s because I 'm a bit of a happy-go-lucky player who ́s not really bothered about his rating; I often play in the pool when I ́m tired or distracted, or after a couple of beers late at night; that keeps my rating down. Tournaments however I only play when I ́m feeling fit and after having warmed up with a few games first; they ́re my main event. I don ́t think that this applies to the majority of tournament players, as I probably have about a 50% win rate in tournaments against similarly rated players to myself; I do lose occasionally to the odd 1300 player, just as I ́ll occasionally beat an 1800+ opponent.
The berserk option in tournaments lowers the rating of a good chunk of players. It isn't uncommon to see opponents with 2500 strength but having a 2300 rating because of their 40%+ berserk rate
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.