Who is better?

Same rating = same strength. That's the very definition of the rating.

As "who is better" can only be answered in comparing winning percentages, which directly correlates to rating (or rating difference), there's your answer.

Maybe their respective skill sets are different, maybe their knowledge is different. Maybe not. There's no way to know. But it is irrelevant, as their rating has proven them to be of equal strength.

The question "what if the d4 player would play something else" doesn't apply, because then your premise "d4 player" is already wrong, or their rating is already different.

All that said, based on their openings, you could speculate that the things they play in rated games is what they know best. But then, there are many players who simply play the same stuff over and over without ever understanding it, just because they like it...

TLDR:
These kind of questions lead absolutely nowhere.

Е4 my favorite movie)

@jesgluckner said in #1:

Is a 2200 e4 player better than a 2200 d4 player?
What about 1800 level?
You're basically asking is d4 or e4 better . Old school e4 , new school d4 ? xxx

@nadjarostowa said in #11:

Same rating = same strength. That's the very definition of the rating.

I wouldn‘t say so.
Elo does not care about method. Only that you win or lose.
If you abuse an opening trick and get from 1100 to 1300 - are you a better player now?

If you are 1400 and play openings that have the best win rate at 1400-1800 range and improve to 1800, how much of it was you?

@jesgluckner said in #14:

I wouldn‘t say so.
Elo does not care about method. Only that you win or lose.
If you abuse an opening trick and get from 1100 to 1300 - are you a better player now?

If you are 1400 and play openings that have the best win rate at 1400-1800 range and improve to 1800, how much of it was you?

What you are saying boils down to:
"A" wins more than "B", but "B" is better, because of some obscure reason ("I like their playing style better.").

Makes no sense. It is irrelevant if your win your games due to opening tricks or fine endgame play.

@nadjarostowa said in #15:

What you are saying boils down to:
"A" wins more than "B", but "B" is better, because of some obscure reason ("I like their playing style better.").

Makes no sense. It is irrelevant if your win your games due to opening tricks or fine endgame play.

Is it not relevant in deciding what „strategy“ is best for improving? Or in finding the reason why you platteau?

It does not boil down to what you said. I am not looking to validate my feelings towards any opening or style I may or may not like. I played my fair share of systems, garbage tricks and mainline openings too so don‘t conclude I am biased.

@jesgluckner said in #16:

Is it not relevant in deciding what „strategy“ is best for improving? Or in finding the reason why you platteau?

It may be. But this was not your question. You brought two equally strong players to the table and asked which is better.

Asking about their respective strengths, or future prospects, or area of improvement, etc. is a completely different matter. But I seriously doubt it could be answered in such a general way.

Here is what you are doing:
You put a glass of milk and a (same size) glass of orange juice on the table and ask which one is bigger. The answer is obvious: neither. They might have different aspects, but if you ask for volume, they are the same. And it doesn't matter that one is much better in your coffee than the other.

@nadjarostowa

It‘s more about predicting who out of two boxers with the same record in their category will do better in the categories above.

Don‘t be put of by the initial question wording. I‘m trying to explain what I‘m after in the other comments.

„Asking about their respective strengths, or future prospects, or area of improvement, etc. is a completely different matter. But I seriously doubt it could be answered in such a general way.“

How would you phrase the hypothesis?

Just rate the moves, not the players. An overall game rating can be derived from the individual move ratings. Comparing these game ratings to the WDL ratio might reveal some mathematical insights. Thoughts?

@Toscani said in #19:

Just rate the moves, not the players. An overall game rating can be derived from the individual move ratings. Comparing these game ratings to the WDL ratio might reveal some mathematical insights. Thoughts?

So comparing in some form the Accuracy or ACP to the WDL ratio?
Or is there another way of rating the moves?

I have to think about it.