Lies, damned lies, and gradings
The other day I found myself messing around with grading calculations for my games from the last few years. You can massage the figures to draw pretty much whatever conclusion you like - especially if, like me, you don't play all that many games. When the law of large numbers hasn't had a chance to assert itself, it's just a question of picking out whatever randomness appeals to you.
For instance, since taking up chess again (after about ten years out) my grades have gone: 139, 153, 160. (And, albeit after very few games, my performance this season is a touch over 170). What a marvellous story of continuous improvement - at this rate I should be giving young Carlsen one hell of a beating by 2020 or so. Well maybe, but I notice that if rather than considering the grading season you instead start the year at January 1st then you get a completely different story. Then my annual performances have gone: 125, 170, 155, 165. Perhaps Magnus shouldn't be too worried after all.
(For what it's worth, I think that the second view is probably truer: it took me a while to get back in the swing of things and since then I've been playing at more or less the same standard as ever, which is to say 160ish. However, I also think that that's just me imposing my narrative on a set of figures that don't really provide much evidence at all.)
This week's game - though actually I'm still working through November's backlog - was played against an opponent rated about 20 points lower than me. 20 points is a horrible gap: you feel as though only a win would be acceptable, though in fact you should only be due to score 70% and therefore probably only expecting to win about 5 or 6 out of 10. So you're going to be disappointed almost half the time; and even when you win you'll likely feel more relieved than anything else.
Happy to report, this was one of the wins. Black was clearly doing well when white played 15. Rc1, but miscalculated somewhere in the complications. I guess he probably missed 20. Nc5 after which, perhaps struggling to adjust to the sudden change of momentum, he gave up more material than necessary and promptly resigned.
For instance, since taking up chess again (after about ten years out) my grades have gone: 139, 153, 160. (And, albeit after very few games, my performance this season is a touch over 170). What a marvellous story of continuous improvement - at this rate I should be giving young Carlsen one hell of a beating by 2020 or so. Well maybe, but I notice that if rather than considering the grading season you instead start the year at January 1st then you get a completely different story. Then my annual performances have gone: 125, 170, 155, 165. Perhaps Magnus shouldn't be too worried after all.
(For what it's worth, I think that the second view is probably truer: it took me a while to get back in the swing of things and since then I've been playing at more or less the same standard as ever, which is to say 160ish. However, I also think that that's just me imposing my narrative on a set of figures that don't really provide much evidence at all.)
This week's game - though actually I'm still working through November's backlog - was played against an opponent rated about 20 points lower than me. 20 points is a horrible gap: you feel as though only a win would be acceptable, though in fact you should only be due to score 70% and therefore probably only expecting to win about 5 or 6 out of 10. So you're going to be disappointed almost half the time; and even when you win you'll likely feel more relieved than anything else.
Happy to report, this was one of the wins. Black was clearly doing well when white played 15. Rc1, but miscalculated somewhere in the complications. I guess he probably missed 20. Nc5 after which, perhaps struggling to adjust to the sudden change of momentum, he gave up more material than necessary and promptly resigned.
Comments