Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 07:28:32 05/31/02
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.
Not necessary. Weak or strong it doesn't matter if you assign about the right
initial rating to them from start. The inflation/deflation starts when they
change in strength. Let's assume that the sum of all ratings is constant as long
as the group of members is intact. Not entirely true but a good enough
assumption. Whenever someone begins to raise his strength his new rating points
are gained from the same total making all the others to have somewhat less total
of ratings to share. If the same player leaves the group all his rating points
are gone.
The typical curve is, I think, the new player start as weak and then becomes
stronger during his lifetime and finally stops with a higher strength than he
started with. The difference in rating is lost forever from the group. That
would imply a deflation in the long run... Another error source is that the new
players are assigned a higher initial rating than they actually should have.
During a limited time those extra rating points are distributed out to the rest
of the pool. That would imply inflation. It's complicated but one thing is
almost for sure: Ratings are inflated or deflated over time.
Peter
>>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?
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.