> Elo ratings tend to accurately predict the outcome of a game. For those who are newer to chess, just know this: If you're pitted against someone with a much h

> Elo ratings tend to accurately predict the outcome of a game. For those who are newer to chess, just know this: If you're pitted against someone with a much higher Elo rating, you can expect a quick and decisive defeat. Isn't that by definition what ELO is? From Wikipedia: The difference in the ratings between two players serves as a predictor of the outcome of a match. Two players with equal ratings who play against each other are expected to score an equal number of wins. A player whose rating is 100 points greater than their opponent's is expected to score 64%; if the difference is 200 points, then the expected score for the stronger player is 76%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system > I'd imagine the only reason this trend levels out at ~90% is because this data set contains games where a talented new player hasn't quite reached their proper Elo rating yet. Well, first of all it can't go above 100% so it obviously has to level out somewhere, and second, this is _by definition_ what the curve should look like: A 400 point ELO difference is a 10:1 expected score difference. > Newcomers, take note: Try to play as White as much as possible [...] ...that's kinda like saying "play against lower-rated players to win more". Sure, if number of games you win is the only thing you care about (and not such things as "getting better at the game" or "playing a fair match"), that's a great idea. Overall the article has interesting plots but very under-informed commentary imo.