Interesting (to a statto like me) discussion of FIDE rating "inflation"
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6401
FIDE rating conference 2010
-
- Posts: 5837
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
FIDE Ratings
See http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6401
An interesting discussion on inflation in FIDE ratings. What is not mentioned is that in November 1986, every woman (except one) was awarded an extra 100 points for political reasons, which probably contributed to the rating inflation. A look at the ratings graph seems to suggest this was the case.
An interesting discussion on inflation in FIDE ratings. What is not mentioned is that in November 1986, every woman (except one) was awarded an extra 100 points for political reasons, which probably contributed to the rating inflation. A look at the ratings graph seems to suggest this was the case.
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey
-
- Posts: 21320
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: FIDE Ratings
I don't really buy the Sonas argument that the top player in any era should be given a 2800 rating. I think somewhere you have to accept the argument that the top players have got that bit stronger than their predecessors particularly in openings and particularly over the last 20 years with the help of database research and chess engines. It's not easy to measure objectively - subjectively you can do it by looking at past move choices and past annotations. Old theory books sometimes say "x is bad because .." when today it's the current main line.
-
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Re: FIDE rating conference 2010
A topic merge there, sorry to Alan who might have been reading it at the time!
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
Carl Hibbard
-
- Posts: 324
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:26 pm
Re: FIDE Ratings
Basically, I'd say that this report shows Sonas' approach to be too flawed to be practically useful. Isn't the fixed system he advocates unable to handle situations like the fall of the Berlin Wall and a rapid influx of strong players, or any other rapid increase in the number of players (such as the Fischer-Spassky effect)? He also seems to have a problem with fluctuations in form, which strikes me as very odd. Any grading or rating system can only ever reflect past performance, which, as any stock broker will tell you, is no guarantee of future performance! Only a reasonably good guide.Roger de Coverly wrote:I don't really buy the Sonas argument that the top player in any era should be given a 2800 rating. I think somewhere you have to accept the argument that the top players have got that bit stronger than their predecessors particularly in openings and particularly over the last 20 years with the help of database research and chess engines. It's not easy to measure objectively - subjectively you can do it by looking at past move choices and past annotations. Old theory books sometimes say "x is bad because .." when today it's the current main line.