Author: Chris Carson
Date: 08:59:16 05/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2002 at 10:48:02, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >The following two facts have definitely caused rating inflation: >1. For a long period of time the winner of a tournament did not lose rating >points, even if she/he scored under the expectations. I do not know how many >points were globally added to the list, but I think they were a lot. When was this. Was this in the beginning of ratings? If this was in the beginning, then I would think ratings could have deflated due to this. It may not be significant in either case. >2. FIDE gave once a gift of 100 rating points to almost all the women in the >rating list (I think the only exceptions were Judith and Zsuzsa Polgar). Here I >am sure there were a lot rating points in total. This could be significant. It depends on how many games these people played and if they lost the 100 points/player. This could also be measured, but I do not think it is significant. > >The following factors can produce rating inflation or deflation, but I believe >it is mostly inflation: >1. The k factor is 15 for players rated up to 2400 and 10 for higher rated >players. This can cause global lose or gain of rating points in tournaments >where there are both players above and below 2400. I think it is mostly gain due >to the abundance of young, talented players which improve very quickly and which >are underrated for some tournaments. Has the k factor changed over time. If not, then I do not think it would cause inflation. Could be significant, but I would need to see a proof. >2. Players who drop the list (they become inactive or die) take their rating >points with them. They could have won or lost rating points since they became >their first rating. Let's call a "succesful player" somebody who wins rating >points after becoming a rating, and a "unsuccesful player" somebody who loses >rating points. Unsuccesful players are much more likely to quickly become >inactive, in the meantime only (or mostly) giving rating points up, they cause >inflation. Of course succesful players also become eventually inactive causing >deflation, but since they tend to remain a lot longer (and they are way less >than the unsuccesful ones), the global effect is smaller. >José. Players dropping off the list or added to the list is not significant to increase ratings. I would need proof to believe this. All the above can be tested, but I do not think any have significantly inflated ratings. I do think that Fisher would have increased his rating if he had stayed active. I think he would have been in the 2850 range, but not because of inflated ratings, just because he was that good. He retired and we will never know, however, ratings can be compared, that has a sound math/stat proof, see ELO research.
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.