Author: Chris Carson
Date: 04:52:11 06/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2002 at 00:46:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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_ Yes they do. > >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.