Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 07:50:42 05/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
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 >2. Where does it come from? I wrote about at: http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?233089 José. > >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 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.