Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:40:03 05/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2002 at 19:08:49, Chris Carson 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). >> >>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. >> >>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 > >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. >:) Elo did _not_ say that. He said that ratings of players in a common pool can be used to predict the outcome of games between players _in_ that common pool. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing about players in different pools. Nothing about players in different pools that share a _few_ players. Etc...
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.