Originally Posted by
Stuart Brammall
I disagree completely and here is why: ratings show strength relative to the entire pool only, and it should not be pretended that they estimate chess ability in an absolute sense.
Example: Suppose there are only two rated players, myself (~1950) and some GM (~2600). Suppose further that we play a never-ending series of matches, and at some point my strength catches up to his. Does this mean that I have data indicating my rating to be 2600? No, what the data suggests is that we both should be rated the same at ~2275.
If the strength of the pool increases and one's strength does not increase at pace, then one's rating must, and should, go down.
You guys should just bite the bullet and play the kid. If you win congrats, if not, be comfirted in that your rating is now more accurate as is his. If he is actually ~1900 strength, it should only take four events for him to catch up, provided they are open events.