[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care if its poker, chess or tiddliwinks. If you insist on math, you simply need to minimize the other guys one game chances, taken to the fifth power. x to the fifth gets smaller as x gets smaller. Duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

In chess this simply doesn't work. By minimizing the other guys chances you minimize your own chances also and the game will end in a draw. Since draws don't count in a match you will play on forever this way, just like Karpov did.

Even though Karpov had a huge lead, it was similar to a must win situation for him (with some sort of safety net). In order to win in chess you have to unballance the position. That may lead to an unclear position with equal chances or an unclear position that's either won or lost, but you cannot apply normal distribution and standard deviation on it, because from this point on it's all about better judgement.

Also there are factors outside the game that may have a huge impact on the result. In the Kramnik-Leko match, Kramnik lost a game, because he didn't have his computer analyze a specific position long enough. Now try to incorporate this into Leko's expected winning percentage. Still such little things are the reasons why chess matches on the highest level swing one way or the other.

If you visit the Kramnik camp and tell him something about 0.5 to the 5th power, he would smile, pat you on the back and send you back home.

The reason why your advice works for poker is the blind structure. There is no draw in poker. If it wasn't for the blinds going up, your imaginary players of equal strength would be pushing chips back and forth forever.