@Jimothy-Jangles said in #10:
> why does the game get more difficult to win when I'm in the 50 to 75 zone, isn't that what the graph shows?
No, it does not. Just like it's more likely players will rest after getting over a milestone, it's more likely they will have more incentive to play when they get close under it so that they are less likely to stay there. I don't say everyone thinks and acts like that but those anomalies are not too big either.
I'm giving up, I really prefer a simple, logical and consistent explanation over artificial hypotheses which can be easily proven wrong by reading about the algorithms and inspecting the code. But perhaps one more hint: have you noticed that these peaks are best seen in bullet and blitz ratings (on the right side), much less so in rapid (where they essentially stop around 2000) and are almost misssing from the right side of the classical graph (but are, in more complicated form, present on the left side instead)? Assuming the natural psychological explanation, it makes pretty good sense. But I really don't see how I would explain it if I assumed some fictitious irregularities in rating calculation process.
> why does the game get more difficult to win when I'm in the 50 to 75 zone, isn't that what the graph shows?
No, it does not. Just like it's more likely players will rest after getting over a milestone, it's more likely they will have more incentive to play when they get close under it so that they are less likely to stay there. I don't say everyone thinks and acts like that but those anomalies are not too big either.
I'm giving up, I really prefer a simple, logical and consistent explanation over artificial hypotheses which can be easily proven wrong by reading about the algorithms and inspecting the code. But perhaps one more hint: have you noticed that these peaks are best seen in bullet and blitz ratings (on the right side), much less so in rapid (where they essentially stop around 2000) and are almost misssing from the right side of the classical graph (but are, in more complicated form, present on the left side instead)? Assuming the natural psychological explanation, it makes pretty good sense. But I really don't see how I would explain it if I assumed some fictitious irregularities in rating calculation process.
