Author: Chris Carson
Date: 04:01:45 05/31/02
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: >> >>>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. >>:) > >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. > The fly in your ointment is that the pool we are talking about is the FIDE pool with plenty of GM's. They play each other, establish a rating that changes over time. Some new players are added, some leave, but most are there for a while most of the time. There is not a disconnect in the ratings pool and there is not one GM with lots of weaker players. The ratings do provide a valid measure of strength. >Now add 10,000 patzers to the pool. > >Let the pool stabilize. You will see the GM with 100 ELO over the IM's. > >However, both the GM and the IM's will have a big boost in their raw ELO score's >numeric value. > >Actually, the model has a lot of problems with it. It has enough trouble just >trying to keep an accurate figure on the current crop of players.
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.