Author: Chris Carson
Date: 05:41:12 06/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2002 at 21:54:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 02, 2002 at 21:32:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 02, 2002 at 20:20:41, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>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... >> >>I hate typing. I know the answer. If you have them you know the answer >>too and can see why the "pools" are vastly different between the time Fischer >>won the WC and today. > > >BTW, the most recent list I downloaded, which was at the end of 2001, had >13 GM players ranked over 2700. Care to guess how many there were in 1972? > >Back then 2600 was considered "very strong". Today it is "so-so". I do not agree that 2600 is so so. That is another point of disagreement. It is well above above average (Top 100 for active FIDE players). Median GM rating is 2525 today. The descriptive stats for 1972 and 2002 show a growth in FIDE membership. There are more GM's, more 2600, 2700 and a couple of 2800. The median has increased. The membership has changed over time, but the change was slow and there were plenty of games over the years between the Top GM's to make valid comparisons. As "you" said above, you can compare avg GM, Top 10 average, # above 2700, ... That is my point! Ratings can be compared and descriptive stats from different era's can be compared. This is not the only type of comparison that is valid, but this is one valid and objective method to compare people from different era's. Hypothesis testing can also be done to establish any ratings inflation, these would include skew analysis. If you post something worth a reply, then I will continue this discussion, however, if I do not continue this, it is because your arguments are not convincing/interesting or worthy of comment.
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.