Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:38:25 05/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2002 at 04:53:18, Amir Ban wrote: >On May 30, 2002 at 20:16:47, Robert Hyatt 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. >> >>statisitically this is not true. First, there is the spectre of rating >>inflation caused by various problems. It has been seen in USCF more than >>once, on the chess servers, etc. It also happens within FIDE. >> >>Second, taking two populations and producing ratings for them works well. If >>you try to say that the two populations are "joined" because a few from one >>group played a few from the other group, statistically that claim is invalid. >> >>You can't just have a few "common people". You need them _all_ to be common >>to both pools to be able to compare the ratings. >> > >This is a reductio ad absurdum, as it follows that ratings in Germany cannot be >compared to ratings in France, and the whole rating notion is not useful. > > Not at all. It is all based on statistics and probability in the first place. But try to compare FIDE and USCF ratings. Or ratings between countries that have lots of internal games and not so many external games. It just happens. Any sampling theory book will tell you that statistics that hold in population A, and statistics that will hold in population B, have little to do with the statistics that will hold in population C where the members of that population represent a small random sample from A and B. I don't see why this isn't obvious. >>> >>>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. >> >> >>Actually they didn't. Since they weren't playing in the same "era" the age >>of those "common opponents" was a classic variable that influences the rating >>difference. >> >> >>> 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. >> >>Again, you can believe what you want, but sampling theory finds problems >>with this sort of sampling approach. Particularly when one geographic region >>has a higher than usual number of top GM players, while another region does >>not. That causes significant rating variances... >> > >You can also believe what you want ... I tend to believe what the statisticians publish, since that is their area of expertise... > > >> >> >>> >>>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). >> >>This has been done. It does... it depends on where you start off "brand new >>players". >> >> >>> >>>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. >> >>Wrong. If the level is uniformly higher, then the ratings should be _unchanged_ >>since everybody is equally better. And the difference between two ratings is >>used to predict outcomes, not the absolute value of a single rating. >> > >There's nothing to keep ratings constant if the field improves. A new and >stronger generation of players would get higher ratings vs. the older >generation, and as the older generation gradually drops out of competition, >averages go up. > >Amir > Are you saying the "new players" are better than the "old players"? Or are you saying "new knowledge" has made _all_ players better than they were 40 years ago? You seemed to be implying the latter. Because I don't believe that the human mind is evolving into a better chess playing thing... Although I certainly believe that opening and ending theory has improved a lot. If you believe that people are physically evolving into better players, I don't buy it. If you believe that "the body of chess knowledge" is expanding and making all players better, then the ratings won't inflate. They _can't_ inflate. At least not because the players got better... > >>> >>>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
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.