Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:20:45 06/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2002 at 07:52:11, Chris Carson wrote: >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. > Citation please? Elo specifically discusses the _difference_ in rating between two players. He specifically mentions that the absolute value of any one player is meaningless. That is my citation. > >> >>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.