I think we got your point by now. You don't seem to get mine, so I'll try again and will bring my point towards yours.

There is level of understanding and level of play. If strength means winning percentage, then obviously you cannot force an increase in winning percentage by applying the same strength.

Now let's look at strength being level of understanding. If you increase your level of understanding, you may expect a temporary increase in winning percentage (against an equal distribution of players around your rank), until you've moved up a rank and your competition has become stronger on average (by virtue of stronger players now starting to accept your game invitations).

This is in general how improvement is regarded.

However this leads to frustration: some people feel they have already invested a lot in their understanding of the game, yet they don't win more games on average. Or they expect to move up 2 ranks, but they merely moved up 1.

To these people I say: what if you're studying interesting stuff which however has only a marginal effect on your results? What if you play too many blitz games, not applying your level of understanding? What if you lose by running out of time, because you try too hard? What if your emotions are running away with you and you resign while you could have fought back? And so on ...

These "improvements in gamesmanship" may be the key to get the results that would be justified by the hours of study spent on joseki, fuseki ...

Once these skills have improved, level of understanding will again be the key determinator. The same stabilization pattern will follow as the one sketched above and there will indeed be no way anymore to force more wins by staying at the same level of understanding (or gamesmanship).

I hope this makes sense and paints a richer picture than either "try to win more" or "your chances are 50/50". Just wanting to win doesn't help indeed. But not even trying to win more (against stronger opponents) is not very ambitious.

My two cents worth (hidden as it's probably redundant)



Edited for simplicity and less typos.

_________________
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.

Elom: did you mean general attitude (instead of aptitude)?

I probably made this response far too long so TL;DR: Attitude is half of General Aptitude.

I think I could use Attitude over ability to control disposition to me, and I changed to the simpler term thanks to your note . I'll take the liberty (no pun intended) to use a broad definition of the word to include personality for the sake of the concept.

But no— by General Aptitude, I mean your ability to do things in general, and I think your Attitude is merely one half of your General Aptitude; Athleticism is what I call the other.

In sports such as tennis or baseball, physical athleticism is most important— strength, speed, flexibility and similar— whereas in sports such as go or chess, mental athleticism is a must— abstract reasoning, visualisation, the ability to pick up patterns, and, moreso in go, comfort with numeral calculation.

_________________
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.

These days I'm more involved in table tennis than go. There too I observe players who have great technical ability but low performance.

One of them converts that into match play in friendly environment, where he attains a level of, say, 4 dan. In competitive environments, especially interclub matches, he loses against, say, 2k. The other one has the technique of a 1 dan but the performance of a 15 kyu in any kind of match, blaming the floor, the light, the balls ... anything to account for the fact that he loses against players of much less technical ability. I could write a sports psychology book based on these two (and myself).

Table tennis is much more of a mental game than Go, in the sense that the impact of stress on your performance is enormous and leads to discrepancies between the "aptitude" and the performance.

Similar to what I've said above about frustrated go players, these two will only increase their frustration by practicing harder and acquiring better technique. The stress to perform according to their own high standards under "real" conditions, is too much for them. "I'm no good" becomes their self fulfilling prophecy.

So they need to develop mechanisms to perform better under stress, which leads to psychological inspection of higher order. I abbreviate that as "practicing winning". In fact, playing weaker players is one way, but then to practice the joy of winning (instead of what they usually do when winning: downplaying their achievement).

I'm not a sports psychologist but I have developed routines for myself. In Go, I claim that "not resigning, not losing on time, and always count liberties, especially late in the game" are the holy trinity of not losing in a stupid way, which is the negative way of achieving a higher win rate.

Interesting observation.

One of the few things I learned about sports psychology applies to go, but not, I guess, table tennis. It is the 80% rule. Go is a long game, with typically more than one battle. When sustained performance is paramount, playing at 80% instead of 100% guards against early burnout.

I know that appears to contradict what I say about raising the level of your game and playing up to yourself, but, IMX, I have not felt that contradiction. Perhaps that has to do with getting into your Zone of Competence. In your Zone you are not striving too hard, neither are you playing beneath yourself.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

I think it's a great idea to talk during sex, as long as it's about snooker.

— Steve Davis