Life In 19x19

Below the top, it is straightforward to increase one's rating: Play a "local" tournament where one is the strongest player.

RobertJasiek wrote:Below the top, it is straightforward to increase one's rating: Play a "local" tournament where one is the strongest player.

I'm not sure this is strictly true in the long term, unless the ratings method is poor. I don't think it is a reliable strategy in the EGF system.

What matters is that it works shortly before a relevant tournament, for which one needs rating points.

The current standing:
Dinerstein -2742
Taranu -2739
Guo Juan -2733
Shikshin Ilya -2706
Shikshina Svetlana -2695
Pop - 2676

Svetlana has no reason to fight with her brother and Pop is 30 points behind of Ilya.

Do you know how to get 30 points in local Romanian event?
He has to beat Catalin 5 games straight, for example. I don't think it's possible

RobertJasiek wrote:What matters is that it works shortly before a relevant tournament, for which one needs rating points.

No, it does not. Even if you play 5 games against players you have a 90% win probability against, your expected rating change is exactly 0. The probability that the one loss per 10 games you would statistically suffer happens in just these 5 games (colloquially speaking) is 50%, and the rating system works on the principle that your loss in the 4:1 case is exactly as big as the gain in the 5:0 case.

Of course, this works on the assumption that none of the players is misrated (or even, that the errors cancel out). However, do you think that someone can not only identify overrated players, but also find a tournament where he would be paired against these players sufficiently often?

I have seen big rating increments of others shortly before the congress, which did not look like coincidence. In some years, I myself decided to enter, play particularly seriously or skip tournaments before a congress to better influence my rating. It works. If average rating were used, it would not work.

RobertJasiek wrote:I have seen big rating increments of others shortly before the congress, which did not look like coincidence. In some years, I myself decided to enter, play particularly seriously or skip tournaments before a congress to better influence my rating. It works. If average rating were used, it would not work.

Please give several examples

I have not collected such examples in writing but only kept their existence in my memory.

RobertJasiek wrote:I have not collected such examples in writing but only kept their existence in my memory.

Robert, are you suggesting that despite asking cassandra for mathematical proofs on their views, here you are happy to provide anecdotal medium term memory to support your own?

Yes. (Not all my opinions are related to formal mathematics. Does this surprise you?)

Hint: Look at Russian 4d~6d with sudden jumps shortly before a congress during the last 10+ years, esp. such Russians who actually play in the EC.

Hint: Concerning my own ratings shortly before an EC, read what I wrote elsewhere.

Russian dan players?
Hmm ...
I am pretty sure, we have such tournaments only in chess, where you can get some rating, without even playing your games.

Tell us names, Robert. I will check the tournaments they played before EGC

I do not know the names by heart, also I would have to check the prior ECs, the names there and everybody's rating development. I am not suggesting unplayed, rated tournament games but specific attendance of suitable tournaments shortly before an EC so as to get a sudden, big rating jump.

RobertJasiek wrote:I do not know the names by heart, also I would have to check the prior ECs, the names there and everybody's rating development. I am not suggesting unplayed, rated tournament games but specific attendance of suitable tournaments shortly before an EC so as to get a sudden, big rating jump.

I will just assume you were lying then.

Why is it good to have the high rating on EGC?
With big supergroup, even 4-dans have chances to enter it.
And for lower groups high rating has no meaning

I think that top 4 European players on EGC should play a knockout to find out the one who gets first priority. For other tournaments - choose by rating. And dont mind Robert, he often gives statements without any evidence and proof. I do not see a possibility to create some great gaps in ratings.