Just wondering!

[Roger de Coverly]

but the opponent couldn't find the continuation.
8/8/8/1p4rP/p1k5/3p4/8/1K3R2 w - - 0 56

Players of that rating aren''t very good. Isn't Black's plan just to space invade with the a and b pawns? As well as being an extra pawn, the d3 pawn can shelter the King from checks. If the h pawn is a worry, just figure on taking it just before or just after it queens. The theory being that connected pawns on the sixth should beat a rook if it comes to that.

[Arnav Sud]

Impressive determination on show there

The other thing is that even 190 points just isn't that big a strength gap. It seems to correspond to an expected score over time of about 0.25 - 0.75. So, assuming you 'never' win then you're expected to draw every other game.

(I've seen loads of games played at this sort of advantage and its very player dependent but t does seem to work out much closer to +2,=2 than +3,-1 over time.).

Haha thanks. Ya I understand what you're saying. I guess it is what it is. Just that it feels counter-intuitive when your "Performance Rating" in a tournament is 1642 and you know that the actual rating will be 1425 + 20 something!

[Nick Burrows]

I certainly find it many times harder to get a draw vs a 2260 than a win vs an 1860 player - but they gain me the same number of rating points

[MartinCarpenter]

Impressive determination on show there

The other thing is that even 190 points just isn't that big a strength gap. It seems to correspond to an expected score over time of about 0.25 - 0.75. So, assuming you 'never' win then you're expected to draw every other game.

(I've seen loads of games played at this sort of advantage and its very player dependent but t does seem to work out much closer to +2,=2 than +3,-1 over time.).

Haha thanks. Ya I understand what you're saying. I guess it is what it is. Just that it feels counter-intuitive when your "Performance Rating" in a tournament is 1642 and you know that the actual rating will be 1425 + 20 something!

Its totally normal to massively over/under perform your 'underlying' grade in a given tournament Even seasons of 20-30 games can have a lot of random fluctuations involved. I'm not sure quite how many games you need for real stability - maybe 50?

Most sensible grading systems don't try and chase those fluctuations too hard - most players have fairly stable strength so it just gets annoying - they wait until you've shown really solid evidence. That can be slightly frustrating if you are actually badly under graded/improving fast! Patience advised

[MartinCarpenter]

I certainly find it many times harder to get a draw vs a 2260 than a win vs an 1860 player - but they gain me the same number of rating points

Now that's a fascinating thing, which I presume some people have gathered really strong evidence on. When I was captaining York A I did briefly look for a bunch of our players and it really does vary a lot.

Some people are simply utterly lethal against mildly weaker players, especially in ''never' losing. Some of us are much more erratic!

More down to inherent motivation levels than playing style, I think?!
(I definitely managed to improve a bit over time.).