Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 19:11:11 05/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2002 at 20:05:35, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On May 30, 2002 at 19:47:52, Mike S. wrote:
>
>>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
>
>We do not know for sure if it has inflated. We *do* know for sure that it has
>moved. It might also be lowered as an absolute number.
>
>>2. Where does it come from?
>
>Adding weaker players to the pool will inflate the ratings of the higher players
>in an absolute number sense. Adding stronger players will lower it. But the
>differences will stay the same.
I like to remind you of the fact that another factor of inflation is exactly the
opposite. If very few strong players play against each other repeatedly, the Elo
score is mounting. However against weaker players a top player can't win much
points. So the level will tend to decrease in that case for the best. Ah, you
meant that for the rest down under the rating will increase nevertheless. Yes, I
agree. :)
Rolf Tueschen
>
>>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 (?).
>
>I think a simulation would be a good idea. The actual problem is incredibly
>complex and I am not sure if my model to understand what would or should happen
>is correct. Since the values are not binary as won/loss but we also have draws,
>that complicates the issue. What does it mean when the best player dies {or
>retires} to the pool?
Oh excuse me, I thought you were talking about human chessplayers. Sorry.
Rolf Tueschen
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.