Upsets

[pax]

hi Watto

There has been previous debate, but no consensus, as to what defines an upset. Some examples of criteria discussed are 'a win where there was 400 rating points difference, etc'.

If that's the definition, then I imagine Cedric antolis in the U12 is very, very upset. He is rated over 1500, and has lost a string of games to triple digit rated players.

[Watto]

hi Watto

There has been previous debate, but no consensus, as to what defines an upset. Some examples of criteria discussed are 'a win where there was 400 rating points difference, etc'.

What would you define as an upset?

regards
starter

Hi starter

Not sure why you’d ask me that question but this is my rather unauthoritative answer.

‘Upset’ isn’t a scientific term… it’s simply a result in which the clear favourite to win (if there is one) gets beaten. Hence the lack of consensus (although thinking about it, even if it was a scientific term there’d be a fair chance we’d get no consensus).

Of course people like to try to measure these things so in chess we turn to ratings. With the sub 1500ers whose ratings are often unreliable for whatever reason, players rated even 500 to 600 points below their opponent not infrequently come up trumps. Still, a 400 rating point difference would probably be fair for this group. Probably also for the 1600 to 2000ers, not that I’ve given this much thought.

With the top players whose ratings tend to be much more reliable (improving juniors and improving adults aside) and where 100 points can signify a real difference in strength, an upset could often involve quite a bit less than a 400 rating points difference. If Canfell had beaten Chandler it would have been a glorious upset in my book but of course there’s less than 200 rating points between them.

[ursogr8]

and now that you have measured it, how are you going to improve it?

hi ''r''a''gg''y

I missed this post of yours in all the excitment of a new poster showing (indirect) interest in competitive indicies...well at least, the upsets part of the main-line thread discussion (elsewhere).

First, are you sure you have not fallen for Kaitlin's misinterpretaion...see 'stitches' thread.

Second, I would have thought the CIs here demonstrate already that the Championships competitiveness is admirably improved by Divisionalisation.

regards, and keep posting
starter

[ursogr8]

If that's the definition, then I imagine Cedric antolis in the U12 is very, very upset. He is rated over 1500, and has lost a string of games to triple digit rated players.

Given that 400 is close to the previous upper-bound of the envelope where we discussed consensus, then, sure, Cedric probably is.

starter

[ursogr8]

Hi starter

Not sure why you’d ask me that question but this is my rather unauthoritative answer.

‘Upset’ isn’t a scientific term… it’s simply a result in which the clear favourite to win (if there is one) gets beaten. Hence the lack of consensus (although thinking about it, even if it was a scientific term there’d be a fair chance we’d get no consensus).

Of course people like to try to measure these things so in chess we turn to ratings. With the sub 1500ers whose ratings are often unreliable for whatever reason, players rated even 500 to 600 points below their opponent not infrequently come up trumps. Still, a 400 rating point difference would probably be fair for this group. Probably also for the 1600 to 2000ers, not that I’ve given this much thought.

With the top players whose ratings tend to be much more reliable (improving juniors and improving adults aside) and where 100 points can signify a real difference in strength, an upset could often involve quite a bit less than a 400 rating points difference. If Canfell had beaten Chandler it would have been a glorious upset in my book but of course there’s less than 200 rating points between them.

Very erudite of you Watto.

And, your post makes me think of two American Presidents.
1 The one who wanted one-armed economists.
2 The second as in 'beating around the bush'.

regards
starter

[Watto]

Very erudite of you Watto.

And, your post makes me think of two American Presidents.
1 The one who wanted one-armed economists.
2 The second as in 'beating around the bush'.

regards
starter

Hi starter. So I’m guessing I’m Truman's two-armed economist... and an ‘erudite’ George Bush? LOL.
There’s no straightforward answer about what constitutes an upset… to spend too much time working out strict measures for that seems a bit pointless to me.

Cheers
Watto
p.s. on the other hand, I'd just like to take this opportunity to say that measures have their uses and are to be greatly encouraged... ;-)