21-06-2013, 03:08 PM
Apologies, I slightly misread your post Mike.
My view is that we need to understand each candidate's strengths and weaknesses. Using the grading data is an important part of that picture, but there will always be a requirement for humans to assess other factors too.
I do think that grade rise can provide valuable information though. I appreciate what you're saying, but mathematically a person who has risen the most to attain a grade has played better most recently than the other. For example, to keep a grade of 1600 one must only perform at 1600 level throughout a season. However, to climb from 1500 to 1600 in a single season, one will almost certainly have to have performed consistently higher than 1600 to do it. Therefore, you could say that the high climber is being held back by their historical results, and is actually stronger than their new grade. We often hear phrases akin to this being thrown around; "he's a strong 1400" for example, implying that one player is stronger than their grade would otherwise suggest.
Further, I think the psychological factors of having a good run of form are valuable. A player who has just had a large grade increase is probably going to be feeling more confident in their ability than a player who hasn't; and therefore might perform better in subsequent games than the other now similarly graded player. Such confidence is one of the most overlooked aspects of improving in my opinion. Simply having the confidence to believe that you can beat someone graded much more highly; or refuse a draw against a much higher rated player if you are winning; is an important step in getting better. This is the reason sports psychologists exist, and we see it all the time in other games/sports. Take tennis, for instance (I like tennis ;P ); following a surprising win against a higher rank, a player often goes immediately on to score more wins against higher ranked players. The confidence of a good win can sometimes be all it takes to flick this switch.
My view is that we need to understand each candidate's strengths and weaknesses. Using the grading data is an important part of that picture, but there will always be a requirement for humans to assess other factors too.
I do think that grade rise can provide valuable information though. I appreciate what you're saying, but mathematically a person who has risen the most to attain a grade has played better most recently than the other. For example, to keep a grade of 1600 one must only perform at 1600 level throughout a season. However, to climb from 1500 to 1600 in a single season, one will almost certainly have to have performed consistently higher than 1600 to do it. Therefore, you could say that the high climber is being held back by their historical results, and is actually stronger than their new grade. We often hear phrases akin to this being thrown around; "he's a strong 1400" for example, implying that one player is stronger than their grade would otherwise suggest.
Further, I think the psychological factors of having a good run of form are valuable. A player who has just had a large grade increase is probably going to be feeling more confident in their ability than a player who hasn't; and therefore might perform better in subsequent games than the other now similarly graded player. Such confidence is one of the most overlooked aspects of improving in my opinion. Simply having the confidence to believe that you can beat someone graded much more highly; or refuse a draw against a much higher rated player if you are winning; is an important step in getting better. This is the reason sports psychologists exist, and we see it all the time in other games/sports. Take tennis, for instance (I like tennis ;P ); following a surprising win against a higher rank, a player often goes immediately on to score more wins against higher ranked players. The confidence of a good win can sometimes be all it takes to flick this switch.