what's more...
I love these types of questions.
What would be even more interesting is if player A and player B also both competed in many of the same tournaments. Player B consistently finished higher, had a higher performance average against the field, had more prize money won, and had even won the event a few times (which player A had not). But every time he played player A heads up he came up short.
Now who's the better player? The winner of the two in a heads up match? Or the one with the better overall performance and resume?
But, while these questions are interesting, they just don't come up often in practice. Maybe one player has a good track record with another player and 'has his number', in that case there might be a pre-match favorite not reflected in the ratings. But I haven't really seen an example where a player that falls short under pressure again and again against all opponents is overrated. Generally speaking this will be baked into their ratings. It's theoretically possible, just seems a bit far fetched. Ratings aren't definitive.
Reminds me of a quote I enjoy: In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
I agree with what you say here, including the fact that Aranas' rating is well-earned.
My point is about ratings, not these two players. If you have a ratings system that only goes by game count, something may be missing.
Suppose I tell you that player A and player B have played 181 games against each other. The game count is 91-90 in favor of player B. Who's the better player?
Now suppose I tell you that they have played ten races to 10, with player A winning 9 of the 10 sets, and player B winning one of them. Who's the better player?
I love these types of questions.
What would be even more interesting is if player A and player B also both competed in many of the same tournaments. Player B consistently finished higher, had a higher performance average against the field, had more prize money won, and had even won the event a few times (which player A had not). But every time he played player A heads up he came up short.
Now who's the better player? The winner of the two in a heads up match? Or the one with the better overall performance and resume?
But, while these questions are interesting, they just don't come up often in practice. Maybe one player has a good track record with another player and 'has his number', in that case there might be a pre-match favorite not reflected in the ratings. But I haven't really seen an example where a player that falls short under pressure again and again against all opponents is overrated. Generally speaking this will be baked into their ratings. It's theoretically possible, just seems a bit far fetched. Ratings aren't definitive.
Reminds me of a quote I enjoy: In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.