Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:48:19 05/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2002 at 10:48:02, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba 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). >> > >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. >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. I think that it changed almost nothing because unfortunately there are almost no women in chess. adding 10 elo to the men could change more than adding 100 elo to the women because for every woman that play chess in tournament there are at least 10 men that do it. I also think that it changed nothing because of another reason. A lot of the women who played played Fide games only against other women. Women got better and this is the reason that the rating of women was simply wrong so people decided to add 100 elo for the women to correct the error. Uri
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.