Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:37:10 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 17:20:35, John Hatcher wrote: >Dann, > >At the risk of whipping a dead horse - What the heck, it can't hurt him any worse than it already has -- he's dead. >IF it is true that there has been rating inflation over the past 30 years >(perhaps as much as 100 points) then a player rated 2400+ in 1971 would be rated >2500+ in 2001. What if there has been rating deflation? What if most of the new players into the pool have more talent (on average) than those of yesteryear? It seems unlikely, but it has certainly not been demonstrated either way. >Still the same player - with the same knowledge and ability - >but now he's a 2500+ player. That's not angels on the head of a pin. There is more information now. Better knowledge of openings and better tools to learn with. I'm not convinced that the player of yesteryear would have his way with him. It might turn out quite the opposite. In any case, he's a damn fine player. >Sure, the general level of knowledge is greater - and perhaps there are more >strong players, but certainly that can't explain ALL the rating disparity >between now and then. There has never been any mathematical demonstration of a disparity -- either way -- that I am aware of. It's all pure speculation. The ratings mean exactly the same thing today that they did ten years ago, twenty, thirty -- all the way back to the beginning. You take a pool of talent, and create an exponential scale. The good players rise to the top, the bad ones sink to the bottom and the middle players float around the middle (which is -- of course -- the vast majority). In any case: 2500 verses 2400 today means *exactly* the same thing it meant at any time during the past. Taken as a whole (on average) the 2400 player will get 36% of the points and the 2500 player will get 64% of the points. Wouldn't it be nice to play Morphy against Tal and Capablanca against Kasparov! But (unfortunately) we can't. Furthermore, we have *simply no way* of knowing how their strength relates except that they all were very, very good. I think the reason I am reacting to the post at all is that I think it is wrong to denigrate such a marvelous achievement as a GM title. Not one in a million people can achieve it. Is today's GM really stronger or weaker? Not only do I say "I don't know" -- I also think it doesn't matter. We have what we have and the system balances itself.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.