Author: Chris Carson
Date: 17:20:41 06/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2002 at 19:46:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 02, 2002 at 13:31:59, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On June 02, 2002 at 10:55:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 02, 2002 at 06:29:06, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>On June 01, 2002 at 21:42:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 01, 2002 at 12:53:59, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 01, 2002 at 11:19:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 01, 2002 at 07:57:45, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On June 01, 2002 at 00:50:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 31, 2002 at 07:16:45, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Dann, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If you believe that ratings inflation exists, then do the stats/research and >>>>>>>>>>present a proof. It may exist and there is plenty of data to look at. If you >>>>>>>>>>can show this, it would prove your point. You should be able to establish >>>>>>>>>>averages for today, 5 years back, 10 years back, 20 years back. Show N >>>>>>>>>>population, break out #GM's, #IM's, ... Show the std deviation. If there is >>>>>>>>>>inflation, you can show it to be significant and establish a 95% confidence >>>>>>>>>>level. You can show the rate of inflaciton over time, factors that influence >>>>>>>>>>the inflation (based on data not opinion) and make recommendations for >>>>>>>>>>correcting this. It would be impressive. The records are there, you may have >>>>>>>>>>to dig them out, but I "know" the data is there. Spend some time, and then >>>>>>>>>>please present your findings, I would really like to see what you find and what >>>>>>>>>>you have to say after you discover it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>There is _no_ way to prove it. Because the "old pool" is gone and can't be >>>>>>>>>compared to the "new pool" to see if players from the "old pool" get a higher >>>>>>>>>or lower rating when they jump into the "new pool". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This is hogwash, there is no problem comparing these, just saying different >>>>>>>>"pools" over and over does not change it. The ratings were never disconnected >>>>>>>>or derived from different "pools". some people left and some new ones added, but >>>>>>>>there was mostly overlap for most of the time, not different. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I gave a direct reference to Elo's book which is derived from sampling >>>>>>>theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Can you give a reference to say "this is hogwash"?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I didn't think so... >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?233311 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You need to actually read his book and understand what he was saying when >>>>>he compared players... >>>> >>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?233447 >>> >>> >>>I believe I _have_ agreed we disagree. So long as you consider all FIDE >>>ratings for the past 50 years to be one "pool" we disagree in a basic way. >>>Because it simply isn't true... >> >>Ok, I can live with that. I respect your opinion, however, my opinion is that >>the FIDE pool has been around since 1970 (1960 for USCF, both Elo systems) and >>that the pool changes over time as members leave and are added. Not a perfect >>system but a valid measure of relative strength. Ratings from different times >>can be compared and one valid comparison over time, but not the only. I would >>calim that my view is "true". Other factors can also be considered when >>comparing chess players, but that is a different debate. > > >Look at the "pools". How many GMs in 1972 when Fischer won the WC? What was >the averate GM rating? The average of the top 10? Do the same for today. You >will see quickly why the pools are different, in a basic way... I have, I have the stats right here, why don't you post them...
This page took 0.01 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.