Author: Mike S.
Date: 16:47:52 05/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2002 at 19:29:45, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 30, 2002 at 19:08:49, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On May 30, 2002 at 17:59:35, Amir Ban wrote: >>(...) >>>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. >>>(...) >>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. >The argument is flawed. >If players never died, were never added and never subtracted from the list then >the notion would work. >Illustration: >Take a pool of players where one guy is GM level and you have 1000 IM's. >Let the pool stabilize. You will see the GM with 100 ELO over the IM's. >Now add 10,000 patzers to the pool. >Let the pool stabilize. You will see the GM with 100 ELO over the IM's. (...) I have questions about elo rating inflation. 1. Does it exist, and if yes 2. Where does it come from? I had one idea: Since there are more very strong GM's "available" than i.e. were in the seventies, an even stronger "Super GM" can reach higher performances. - Just because he doesn't have to play that many opponents which are much lower rated, like it was unavoidable probably in the 70's (when there just weren't so many 2650+ players at all). If this is true, it would mean that you can reach *higher elo performances with the same strength* today (because you have more stronger opponents available to beat). If this is so, then the top ranks of the SSDF list are also affected by that, most probably (?). Thanks, M.Scheidl
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.