Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:46:33 05/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2002 at 07:01:45, Chris Carson 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: >>> >>>>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. >>>:) >> >>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. >> > >The fly in your ointment is that the pool we are talking about is the FIDE pool >with plenty of GM's. They play each other, establish a rating that changes over >time. Some new players are added, some leave, but most are there for a while >most of the time. There is not a disconnect in the ratings pool and there is >not one GM with lots of weaker players. The ratings do provide a valid measure >of strength. > No they do _not_ Two ratings provide an estimate of the outcome of a game between the two players. Nothing more. Nothing less. The absolute value of the rating is absolutely immaterial. Of course, Elo pointed this out already. But nobody seems to listen. >>Now add 10,000 patzers to the pool. >> >>Let the pool stabilize. You will see the GM with 100 ELO over the IM's. >> >>However, both the GM and the IM's will have a big boost in their raw ELO score's >>numeric value. >> >>Actually, the model has a lot of problems with it. It has enough trouble just >>trying to keep an accurate figure on the current crop of players.
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.