This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
All Elo rating systems rely on a fundamental assumption: that odds of winning are transitive. If player A beats B at a rate of 2:1, and player B beats C at a rate of 3:1, then A should beat C at a rate of 6:1. Without some sort of transitive assumption you wouldn't be able to say much about A's probability of beating C if they haven't played before.
I didn't find any study on this so I went to test this assumption and check if the Elo rating system underestimates the chances of an underdog. I used a month of blitz games on Lichess* to get this result:
On both sides of the graph, the underdogs win more often than expected on a consistent basis.
Why does it matter? Well this implies that you will end up with a higher rating than you should if you always play higher rated opponents, and a lower rating that you should if you play lower rated opponents.
Taking the "Actual" win rates above for granted, here is the implied inflation/deflation from playing opponents below/above your rating:
* https://database.lichess.org/ using 2016-07
What equation was used in the theoretical (orange) curve of the first figure?
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 2 years ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/chess/comme...