>I don't know of a single 2400 player who can score an average of 0.25 against 2600 players
I mean, you can look at the stats. They play all the time and while it becomes less accurate at the highest ratings (more so at the 2800+ level), 2400 vs 2600 does still result in something in the general range of 0.25. However, if it's 0.1 (like in your example) then my point is even stronger since it would be even harder to turn that into a win consistently with just 1 hint.
>Even at my own mediocre level of 1800, I definitely do not score 0.25 against 2000 rated players.
If you are noticing that at your level, it is probably either selective memory or specific to your play as ELO-estimated winning chances hold up well enough at 1800-2000.
I mean, you can look at the stats. They play all the time and while it becomes less accurate at the highest ratings (more so at the 2800+ level), 2400 vs 2600 does still result in something in the general range of 0.25. However, if it's 0.1 (like in your example) then my point is even stronger since it would be even harder to turn that into a win consistently with just 1 hint.
>Even at my own mediocre level of 1800, I definitely do not score 0.25 against 2000 rated players.
If you are noticing that at your level, it is probably either selective memory or specific to your play as ELO-estimated winning chances hold up well enough at 1800-2000.