Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:40:20 06/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2002 at 12:06:44, Chris Carson wrote: >On June 01, 2002 at 11:18:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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". > >The pool will change slowly over time. One person does not change the pool that >much. Membership changes slowly over time and every person does not have to >play every other. It is clear we will disagree on this. Technically if you change _one_ member of the pool, the ratings are invalidated for a period of time. But the "change" is, as you said, very small. But look at the change to the pool from the time that covers when Fischer was active, to the pool when Kasparov became active. Particularly the pool where he earned his 2850 rating. There is little connection to Fischer's pool. This is a lot like a "quiet pond". A single pebble creates ripples that bounce back and forth across the pond for minutes. And the water eventually settles down to the "new depth".
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.