Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: why don't people understand that ratings are relative

Author: Sune Fischer

Date: 09:39:04 02/19/03

Go up one level in this thread


On February 19, 2003 at 11:53:54, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>>Perhaps, I think those that play chess today has an easier time getting a game
>>going (via Internet or own programs), so it is possible that they improve faster
>>than 20 years ago where the only option was to play once a week down in the
>>local club.
>>
>>-S.
>
>
>they may improve _faster_ but the overall chess population won't improve.  It
>_can't_.

Why not? Suppose you have a group of youngsters interested in chess for a
duration of maybe 3 years. 20 years ago they would have met once a week, played
for 4 hours and that would have been it. Today they go home from school, turn on
their computers and play all afternoon on the servers (well possible senario,
right?). Now I would expect these youngerst to be stronger, on average, compared
to those 20 years ago. Grand masters keep getting your and we see more and more
of them, but is this a sign of inflation or due to more chess being played? That
question is not so easy to answer I think.

>If everyone improves the ratings _must_ stay the same for the average.  If they
>don't,
>there is inflation.  The inflation comes in with new players .

I don't get that. Deflation comes with new players (they start at 1000 but maybe
is really 1300), inflation comes through the bonus points scored by those moving
up the ranks and the fact that there are no good ways to balance things, no
absoluteness in the scale so it tends to drift (up _or_ down).

-S.



This page took 0.01 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.