Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:25:53 02/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2003 at 12:39:04, Sune Fischer wrote: >On February 19, 2003 at 11:53:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>Perhaps, I think those that play chess today has an easier time getting a game >>>going (via Internet or own programs), so it is possible that they improve faster >>>than 20 years ago where the only option was to play once a week down in the >>>local club. >>> >>>-S. >> >> >>they may improve _faster_ but the overall chess population won't improve. It >>_can't_. > >Why not? Because if _everybody_ improves, ratings can _not_ change, since ratings are based solely on the probability of X beating Y. :) >Suppose you have a group of youngsters interested in chess for a >duration of maybe 3 years. 20 years ago they would have met once a week, played >for 4 hours and that would have been it. Today they go home from school, turn on >their computers and play all afternoon on the servers (well possible senario, >right?). Now I would expect these youngerst to be stronger, on average, compared >to those 20 years ago. Grand masters keep getting your and we see more and more >of them, but is this a sign of inflation or due to more chess being played? That >question is not so easy to answer I think. > >>If everyone improves the ratings _must_ stay the same for the average. If they >>don't, >>there is inflation. The inflation comes in with new players . > >I don't get that. Deflation comes with new players (they start at 1000 but maybe >is really 1300), I don't follow. Players don't start at 1000. They might be _seeded_ as if they are 1000 in a tournament, but their initial rating is the rating of their first opponent, based on the result. And this continues for the first 20 or 24 games... >inflation comes through the bonus points scored by those moving >up the ranks and the fact that there are no good ways to balance things, no >absoluteness in the scale so it tends to drift (up _or_ down). That was my point... Except it _never_ drifts down unless there is an overall downward manual correction. The current systems only drift up. But if everyone would get off the "2850 means XXX is the best player ever" and only use it to say that "XXX is 50 points better than the next best player" things would be a lot saner, because the former is wrong, while the latter is perfectly accurate. > >-S.
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.