Because it is boring as heck, for them?
Like a 300 lb man running a marathon against an Olympic calibre runner.
Like a 300 lb man running a marathon against an Olympic calibre runner.
I saw a video explaining why super GMs avoid open tournaments, and it boils down to not having anything to win but a lot to lose. For example, if they lose to a weak GM they lose rating that they'll take a few months to gain back. I guess a GM losing against somebody rated 500 points lower is about as bad, and this has a probability of around 5% of happening. Would you risk it if you were a GM?
This is not how the rating calculation works. If the lower rated players have rating matching their strength, the probability should match the ratio between rating gain and loss so that when two players keep playing sufficient number of games, long term their ratings should not drift. In practice, the "400 points rule" in fact favors the stronger player so that someone playing opponents rated more than 400 points lower should gain rating statistically.
Of course, that assumes that both players have adequate ratings, i.e. are neither overrated nor underrated. Thus part of the reluctance may be due to the risk of meeting lower rated players whose ratings do not reflect their actual strength.
Of course, that assumes that both players have adequate ratings, i.e. are neither overrated nor underrated. Thus part of the reluctance may be due to the risk of meeting lower rated players whose ratings do not reflect their actual strength.
Probs they think they aren't that good(no offense)
Why formula1 doesn't allow VW Golf to participate?
I would also go with the "nothing to win, much to lose" argument.
As @mkubecek pointed out, the rating system "should" account for that, but I think with larger rating spreads the actual predictability goes down. Someone published a graph somewhere with data real vs. expected outcome based on rating difference, but I can't remember where I saw it. Maybe on a lichess blog?!
Even if it works perfectly: you don't play 100 games. You play one stressful game. And the GM faces someone who is highly motivated, has nothing to lose, and has tons of games to prepare against his opponent. At least the K-factor for GMs is a bit lower than for the rest of us.
And as the massively higher rated player, you absolutely have to win, because a draw already hurts so much.
It is very annoying for amateurs to play much lower rated opponents, and I think this can be only worse for GMs.
As @mkubecek pointed out, the rating system "should" account for that, but I think with larger rating spreads the actual predictability goes down. Someone published a graph somewhere with data real vs. expected outcome based on rating difference, but I can't remember where I saw it. Maybe on a lichess blog?!
Even if it works perfectly: you don't play 100 games. You play one stressful game. And the GM faces someone who is highly motivated, has nothing to lose, and has tons of games to prepare against his opponent. At least the K-factor for GMs is a bit lower than for the rest of us.
And as the massively higher rated player, you absolutely have to win, because a draw already hurts so much.
It is very annoying for amateurs to play much lower rated opponents, and I think this can be only worse for GMs.
@sheckley666 said in #6:
> Why formula1 doesn't allow VW Golf to participate?
You would need the F1 driver to wreck their car to allow for any winning chances for the Golf. The level of dedication needed to lose would be huge. Besides the Golf would pose a safety risk.
In chess, a single lapse might cost you the game, or half of it. At any time.
If the Golf had caught up to you, no big deal - this is corrected in a second. At chess, hardly so.
> Why formula1 doesn't allow VW Golf to participate?
You would need the F1 driver to wreck their car to allow for any winning chances for the Golf. The level of dedication needed to lose would be huge. Besides the Golf would pose a safety risk.
In chess, a single lapse might cost you the game, or half of it. At any time.
If the Golf had caught up to you, no big deal - this is corrected in a second. At chess, hardly so.
@nadjarostowa A single lapse of a F1 driver might wreck his car. ;)
Plus, I doubt, the average lichess user would be able to convert a huge advantage into a win against a GM.
But this is not the point. The point is, there is absolutely no challenge for the top pro's to compete against amateurs that far away from their own level. In fact, the only challenge is to focus enough to avoid these single lapses.
Plus, I doubt, the average lichess user would be able to convert a huge advantage into a win against a GM.
But this is not the point. The point is, there is absolutely no challenge for the top pro's to compete against amateurs that far away from their own level. In fact, the only challenge is to focus enough to avoid these single lapses.
Okay but what about casual play @nadjarostowa