As I remember, someone who put together a study of highly mismatched chess games reached a similar conclusion. Strong chess players often play longer games and

As I remember, someone who put together a study of highly mismatched chess games reached a similar conclusion. Strong chess players often play longer games and lose more material when their opponent is thoroughly unskilled players than when they're merely somewhat weaker. It's possible to beat weaker players more efficiently, but it requires consciously "playing down" to set simple traps and grab materiel quickly. Otherwise, a clueless opponent will disrupt "sophisticated" plays by accepting losing trades and ignoring threats. It lowers their chances of actually winning compared to a better player, but pushes the game towards a drawn out chase. And yes, I think there's certainly some truth to the hype cycle comparison. They both remind me of the "four stages of competence", where people in the middle two stages of "conscious" execution can be slower and more uncertain than either trained or untrained instinct.