Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:18:33 06/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2002 at 07:52:57, Chris Carson wrote: >On June 01, 2002 at 00:40:03, Robert Hyatt 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. >>>:) >> >> >>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... > >They are in a common pool - FIDE. They are _not_ a common pool. IE Fischer playing today? Did Kasparov play Fischer in the late 60's or early 70's? Is Spassky playing today? It is the same _organization_. It is _not_ the same "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.