@Wasted_Youth said in #9:
> 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.
>
I don't think you get my point. lets imagine 3 players, A ( 2200 ) B ( 1900 ) and C ( 1905 ) , the ratings being the actual strength of the players.
A plays in hourly arenas
B plays in hourly arenas ,<2000 arenas/ the pool
C plays in <2000 arenas/ the pool
<2000 arenas are basically the same as pools due to lack of berserk.
now say A gets paired with B in a hourly tournament. A, being 300 points higher rated, berserks. now due to A being at a disadvantage, has a higher probability to lose to B, lets say this game A lost due to berserking. B gains 10 points and A loses 10 points. now B plays against C in a Berserk-less game, since B is over-ratted by a bit, C is actually a bit stronger even if the ratings say otherwise. C wins and gains 5 points, B loses 5 points. now A has a rating of 2190, B is 1905, and C is 1910. over a long period of time, A might eventually fall to 2100, B might become 1950, C might become 1955. as you can see, B and C are over-rated by 50 points, while A is underrated by 100 points.
your point stands within one pool, but arenas and the standard pool are different pools, due to the berserk option.
> 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.
>
even a 0.05% inflation of the general pool and a 0.05% deflation in the tournament pool per day leads to a 0.1% difference, which over the course of just a year leads to a 44% difference, which is huge
> 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.
could be the reason, as I imagine many players are more serious in tournaments than in the pools.
> 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.
>
I don't think you get my point. lets imagine 3 players, A ( 2200 ) B ( 1900 ) and C ( 1905 ) , the ratings being the actual strength of the players.
A plays in hourly arenas
B plays in hourly arenas ,<2000 arenas/ the pool
C plays in <2000 arenas/ the pool
<2000 arenas are basically the same as pools due to lack of berserk.
now say A gets paired with B in a hourly tournament. A, being 300 points higher rated, berserks. now due to A being at a disadvantage, has a higher probability to lose to B, lets say this game A lost due to berserking. B gains 10 points and A loses 10 points. now B plays against C in a Berserk-less game, since B is over-ratted by a bit, C is actually a bit stronger even if the ratings say otherwise. C wins and gains 5 points, B loses 5 points. now A has a rating of 2190, B is 1905, and C is 1910. over a long period of time, A might eventually fall to 2100, B might become 1950, C might become 1955. as you can see, B and C are over-rated by 50 points, while A is underrated by 100 points.
your point stands within one pool, but arenas and the standard pool are different pools, due to the berserk option.
> 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.
>
even a 0.05% inflation of the general pool and a 0.05% deflation in the tournament pool per day leads to a 0.1% difference, which over the course of just a year leads to a 44% difference, which is huge
> 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.
could be the reason, as I imagine many players are more serious in tournaments than in the pools.