Cunningham Prop bet to get to 2100

[OneArrow]

Yes, I agree, especially because in 1986 they did not have bonus points (at least none that I remember). It seems very unlikely that a young, 21-year-old rated 2100+ could quickly drop to 1951, unless he was never 2100+ strength in the first place. The reason I say "quickly drop" is because remember, this guy was only 21. One doesn't drop a legit 150 points unless one is inactive for a number of years. How many years could a 21-y-o be inactive? OTOH, it is possible that Lederer had a few bad tournaments (sick, dog died, etc.), and he decided to drop chess after that. In this latter scenario, however, I would say that Lederer is stronger than most people give him credit. In this latter scenario, he would have regained his 150 points easily enough (if this was his nominal strength and he stuck with chess), and his 25-year layoff would now put him at about 1900 (a "normal" 200-point loss for inactivity). If his nominal 1986 strength was actually 1951, then today he is more likely about 1800 or 1750, and AC has a decent shot, if not a favorable one.

For me then, a key part of the odds, if I were an odds maker, would be to know Lederer's pre-1986 tournament history.

[katie75013]

Originally Posted by John_Douglas

But for a player has an established rating of 2100+ it would be quite unusual for them to drop to 1950 through variance alone.

What we don't know is the amount of time that passed throughout the loss of the rating points. All we know is that in 1986 he was rated 1951 (I looked it up just to be sure). If he went from 2100+ down to 1951 in a year, this, IMO is completely normal for someone who stopped caring about the game/rating points or who just stopped studying/preparing and was just playing for fun or because he/she was just used to playing specific tournaments each year or something.

There are many players out there who played/studied a ton for a period of time, achieved a certain level of success/rating and then moved onto other things in life. But when that state championship comes around or that Labor Day tournament or that fun Las Vegas tournament, etc. comes around they just habitually gravitate towards it like instinct This is what could explain the rating point loss over a reasonable period of time.

Obviously in 1986, a young Lederer does not fall into the lifelong 2300+ player group who at age 50 hit his floor of 2200 and stayed there the rest of his life. lol.

And I'm not sure if there is a way to actually find out tournament history prior to what is on the uscf site. I would hope/think that they have the actual paper crosstables stored in some warehouse in either TN or NY, but that makes it unlikely we will be able to access them.

[TimM]

I know someone who has rating supplements going back to the 70s, so maybe I can at least find some information about HLs rating history...

[katie75013]

Originally Posted by TimM

I know someone who has rating supplements going back to the 70s, so maybe I can at least find some information about HLs rating history...

hahaha. My grandfather was like that too. Kept every single one He also had thousands of CL's to go along with them. lol.

[Dynasty]

OneArrow,

I think you're underestimating how easy it is to lose 150 or more points if you lose interest in the game. We both know a BCC regular who has done exactly this.

Jacob Rasin's rating graph:





Once you hit your peak, it's easy to fall precipitously if you don't continue to work hard at the game.

[TimM]

Originally Posted by TimM

I know someone who has rating supplements going back to the 70s, so maybe I can at least find some information about HLs rating history...

.

Actual I have them back to 1969. Howard's last rating was in 1987 at 1951 although he could have stopped playing before that. He had a rating of 2100 exactly in the 1982 Annual list. In 1981 he was in the 1700s and in 1980 he was in the 1500s. He didn't join the USCF until the late 1970s. I don't have rating lists for 1983 to 1986 because the 1987 list was a 5 year cumulative list and I saw no need to keep them.

[OneArrow]

Based on this information, and not making any adjustment for the difference between 1982 ratings and 2010 ratings, I would guess that Lederer's strength has not fallen much below 1900. One usually does not fall much more than 300 points off one's peak, so given the great time lapse I would approximate Lederer's current strength to be about 300 points lower than 2100. This would be about 1800. Now adjust this for any rating inflation or deflation since 1982. There was a period of inflation in the 1990s and then a period of deflation in the 2000s. So let's call it a wash.

If I were an odds maker, I would create a line based on HL having a current strength of about 1800. AC, at about 1650, currently has about a 30% to 35% chance (without seeing the official ELO probability table) of winning the one game match and the bet.

...just my two cents. This thread has seemed to discuss these ideas to death, by this point.

Thanks for the rating supplement info, guys. I knew these old and brittle phone-book-type supplements were good for something.
OA

[jontsef]

Originally Posted by TimM

.

He has the 5 year supplement of 87 right? What were Lederer's ratings from 83 to 87?

[YouKnowWho]

Just out of curiosity, where does this: One usually does not fall much more than 300 points off one's peak - come from? I mean it is clearly just a random number that you thought off, isn't it?

[TimM]

Originally Posted by jontsef

He has the 5 year supplement of 87 right? What were Lederer's ratings from 83 to 87?

We don't know, I guess it only shows the last rating reached during that period. If someone had the chess life issues over that time they could look at the rating lists in there.

[metsman82]

OneArrow talking out of his ass IMO.

I played the game after a two year break and it took me 2-3 weeks of playing regularly (100-125 games) before I was 90%-95% of my peak. I was easily 400+ points worse in the first dozen matches.

Lederer coming in cold to this match is toast.

[OneArrow]

Obviously my 300-point max drop is purely subjective, but it is based on something. The USCF, for whatever reasons, floors people 200 points below their peak rating rounded to the nearest hundred points. (For example, someone with a peak rating of 1599 would have a floor of 1300.) I'm using the USCF estimate. Most people, however, never get to within one point of flipping their third digit, and many people, after a layoff, don't hit their floor. I'm using the 300-point number as an estimate. Make it 400 points if you wish. My ass doesn't care. This would still put HL at 1700, and the current favorite if AC is currently rated 1650.

Positional chess is a lot more like riding a bicycle than tactics is. If AC is going to try to push the game into tactical waters, I guarantee you that HL is going to try to push it into a dry positional struggle that ends in a queen trade and a dry endgame -- just how many endgames has EC even seen, let alone studied?

[Chai1111]

I was at the US Open in August. Spoke with Allan there and watched his results.
He beat 3 experts and tied a master, starting with a 1571 provisional rating and gaining over a hundred points. There's no question that he has the ability. The better question is, does he have enough time?

[BobJoeJim]

Originally Posted by OneArrow

Based on this information, and not making any adjustment for the difference between 1982 ratings and 2010 ratings, I would guess that Lederer's strength has not fallen much below 1900. One usually does not fall much more than 300 points off one's peak, so given the great time lapse I would approximate Lederer's current strength to be about 300 points lower than 2100. This would be about 1800. Now adjust this for any rating inflation or deflation since 1982. There was a period of inflation in the 1990s and then a period of deflation in the 2000s. So let's call it a wash.

If I were an odds maker, I would create a line based on HL having a current strength of about 1800. AC, at about 1650, currently has about a 30% to 35% chance (without seeing the official ELO probability table) of winning the one game match and the bet.

...just my two cents. This thread has seemed to discuss these ideas to death, by this point.

Thanks for the rating supplement info, guys. I knew these old and brittle phone-book-type supplements were good for something.
OA

The piece of this handicapping that seems flawed to me is the assumption that Allen's rating accurately measures his playing strength. You've carefully considered what Lederer's playing strength is likely to be, but you're just blindly assuming that Cunningham's current rating accurately measures his strength.

Consider: When this bet was made he was a rank amateur. His 875 provisional rating in January was probably a pretty good measure of his playing strength at the time. Now, nine months later, he's rated 1649. And he's only played three tournaments in the last three months. His extremely rapid improvement is clear, and given the way the rating system works, and how few tournaments he's played relative to his practice and training time, makes it seem likely to me that his rating is probably lagging behind his true strength.

If you are basing your line on Lederer playing at 1800 strength, then I don't think that makes Allen as big an underdog as a true 1650 would be. I think Allen probably has a strength of at least 1700 right now, and he still has more time to improve.

[ganstaman]

Originally Posted by OneArrow

The USCF, for whatever reasons, floors people 200 points below their peak rating rounded to the nearest hundred points. (For example, someone with a peak rating of 1599 would have a floor of 1300.)

Maybe it's just because I'm rushing, but one or more of the above numbers seem wrong to me.