Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:49:00 05/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2002 at 20:05:35, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On May 30, 2002 at 19:47:52, Mike S. 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:
>>>>(...)
>>>>>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.
>>>>>(...)
>>
>>>>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.
>>>Now add 10,000 patzers to the pool.
>>>Let the pool stabilize. You will see the GM with 100 ELO over the IM's. (...)
>>
>>I have questions about elo rating inflation.
>>
>>1. Does it exist, and if yes
>
>We do not know for sure if it has inflated. We *do* know for sure that it has
>moved. It might also be lowered as an absolute number.
>
>>2. Where does it come from?
>
>Adding weaker players to the pool will inflate the ratings of the higher players
>in an absolute number sense. Adding stronger players will lower it. But the
>differences will stay the same.
>
Actually adding stronger players will lower the overall average. But it
will also _increase_ the rating of the strongest player. For obvious
reasons...
>>I had one idea: Since there are more very strong GM's "available" than i.e. were
>>in the seventies, an even stronger "Super GM" can reach higher performances. -
>>Just because he doesn't have to play that many opponents which are much lower
>>rated, like it was unavoidable probably in the 70's (when there just weren't so
>>many 2650+ players at all).
>>
>>If this is true, it would mean that you can reach *higher elo performances with
>>the same strength* today (because you have more stronger opponents available to
>>beat).
>>
>>If this is so, then the top ranks of the SSDF list are also affected by that,
>>most probably (?).
>
>I think a simulation would be a good idea. The actual problem is incredibly
>complex and I am not sure if my model to understand what would or should happen
>is correct. Since the values are not binary as won/loss but we also have draws,
>that complicates the issue. What does it mean when the best player dies {or
>retires} to the pool?
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.