Muslim Inalkayev

Opponent rating

1,125

Expected win chance

59%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +8 Current rating influence: The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +8

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,125

Effective opponent evidence

1.8

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

59%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

02:16

Round

1

Score

8–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,523

Expected win chance

36%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −4 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −4

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,523

Effective opponent evidence

21.5

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

36%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

00:50

Round

1

Score

2–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,523

Expected win chance

36%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −4 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −4

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,523

Effective opponent evidence

21.5

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

36%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

0–5

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,125

Expected win chance

59%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +8 Current rating influence: The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +8

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,125

Effective opponent evidence

1.8

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

59%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

02:56

Round

1

Score

9–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,549

Expected win chance

24%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −10 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −10

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,549

Effective opponent evidence

25.9

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

24%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

7 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:28

Round

3

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,317

Expected win chance

49%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −15 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −15

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,317

Effective opponent evidence

23.3

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

49%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

7 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

02:12

Round

2

Score

2–2

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,204

Expected win chance

60%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −15 Current rating influence: The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −15

The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,204

Effective opponent evidence

5.2

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

60%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

7 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:46

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,694

Expected win chance

19%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −2 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −2

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,694

Effective opponent evidence

42.4

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

19%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

01:35

Round

4

Score

0–4

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,428

Expected win chance

54%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +15 Current rating influence: The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +15

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,428

Effective opponent evidence

27.6

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

54%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

3

Score

4–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,199

Expected win chance

48%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +11 Current rating influence: This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +11

This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,199

Effective opponent evidence

4.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

48%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

2–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,402

Expected win chance

52%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −9 Current rating influence: The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −9

The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,402

Effective opponent evidence

8.6

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

52%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ 0 Current rating influence: This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ 0

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Round

2

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Outside the current rating period

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ 0 Current rating influence: This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ 0

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Outside the current rating period

Opponent rating

1,393

Expected win chance

59%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −7 Current rating influence: The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 5 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −7

The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 5 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,393

Effective opponent evidence

3.3

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

59%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.67

Same-event matches

5

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:44

Round

1

Score

1–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,546

Expected win chance

36%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −5 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −5

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,546

Effective opponent evidence

22.6

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

36%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

02:20

Round

1

Score

2–9

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,175

Expected win chance

26%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −13 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −13

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,175

Effective opponent evidence

1.8

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

26%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

7 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:13

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,235

Expected win chance

34%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −9 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −9

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,235

Effective opponent evidence

1.2

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

34%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

7 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.54

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

01:38

Round

2

Score

2–3

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,235

Expected win chance

34%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −9 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −9

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,235

Effective opponent evidence

1.2

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

34%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

7 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.54

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

00:22

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,457

Expected win chance

31%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +22 Current rating influence: This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +22

This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,457

Effective opponent evidence

10.6

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

31%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:14

Round

1

Score

2–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ 0 Current rating influence: This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ 0

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

7 rated matches · Established

Round

2

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Outside the current rating period

Opponent rating

1,102

Expected win chance

39%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +4 Current rating influence: This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. Within No-Gi this match has full weight: there were no other eligible matches at this event or other meetings with this opponent. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +4

This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating.

Within No-Gi this match has full weight: there were no other eligible matches at this event or other meetings with this opponent.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,102

Effective opponent evidence

1.0

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

39%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

7 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

1.00

Same-event matches

1

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

02:32

Round

1

Score

6–2

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,131

Expected win chance

59%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +8 Current rating influence: The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +8

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,131

Effective opponent evidence

1.2

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

59%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.59

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

6–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,131

Expected win chance

59%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +8 Current rating influence: The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +8

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,131

Effective opponent evidence

1.2

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

59%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.59

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

1

Score

7–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,318

Expected win chance

59%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −6 Current rating influence: The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 5 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −6

The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 5 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,318

Effective opponent evidence

3.0

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

59%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.47

Same-event matches

5

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

02:00

Round

3

Score

2–2

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,312

Expected win chance

58%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +13 Current rating influence: The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +13

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,312

Effective opponent evidence

6.2

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

58%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

02:00

Round

2

Score

2–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,156

Expected win chance

65%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +10 Current rating influence: The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +10

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,156

Effective opponent evidence

4.0

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

65%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

02:00

Round

1

Score

11–0

Academy during event

Stark Belgium

Opponent rating

1,318

Expected win chance

59%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −6 Current rating influence: The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 5 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −6

The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 5 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,318

Effective opponent evidence

3.0

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

59%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

17 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.47

Same-event matches

5

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

02:00

Round

2

Score

2–2

Academy during event

Stark Belgium