Author: Chris Carson
Date: 16:08:49 05/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2002 at 17:59:35, Amir Ban wrote: >On May 30, 2002 at 13:34:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 30, 2002 at 13:19:45, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On May 30, 2002 at 13:15:59, Jerry Jones wrote: >>> >>>>Does anybody know what the highest official ELO rating according to FIDE is that >>>>was ever attained by a human, Kasparov that is. >>>>Is it possible that a few years ago his rating was a few points higher ? >>>>If Kasparov had declined to play Deep Blue, would this have influenced his >>>>rating ? >>> >>>You can add one million points to his ELO rating if you like. Or subtract them. >>> Just be sure to do it to everyone else and it is perfectly valid. >>> >>>ELO figures are only valuable as differences within a pool of players who have >>>had many competitions against each other. The absolute numbers mean absolutely >>>nothing. >> >> >>This is a continual problem. :) 32 degrees F means one thing. 32 degrees C >>means another thing. 32 degrees K means another thing. No way to compare >>today's 2850 rating to the ratings of players 40 years ago. > >It is perfectly sensible to compare ratings of 40 years ago and even more to >today's. That's because at no point in time did the pool of players change, with >an old group completely replaced by another. The ratings are measured against >the field, which changes continuously, and provides continuity of the ratings. > >So, even if Kasparov and Fischer never met (certainly Kasparov 2001 never met >Fischer 1972), they had many common opponents, whose ratings where themselves >determined by common opponents, etc. There's no more reason to assume that >ratings in time are incomparable than to assume that ratings in the US and in >Europe are incomparable, for, although most games are in one region, there are >enough interregional games to give the ratings worldwide meaning. > >There are random fluctuations in the rating standard, because it's all >statistics, but the numbers are large, and I'm not aware of anything that would >cause ratings to systematically drift in any direction (actually this can be >simulated effectively, by creating a random population of players and slowly >change the pool over time and see if averages drift). > >Most strong players agree that the level of play is higher than 30 years ago, >and that's a good enough reason why today top ratings are higher. > >Fischer, Alekhine, Capablanca are of course classics, but so are Johnnie >Weissmuller and Jessie Owens, who would be today's also-rans. It is tempting to >say that this is because today our clocks run slower than in their time, but >they don't. > >Amir ELO said that ratings can be compared, one of the reasons he created this system. Ofcourse you are right. However, this will continue to be a debate. :)
This page took 0.02 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.