(Per the post: Is the rumor true, that if Bobby Fischer were alive today, his rating would be close to 10,000?)
Then I guess I won't start that rumor.
Who the highest rated chess player in history?
Sort:
TetsuoShima wrote:
shepi13 wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
but that there is an elo inflation is only logical if more players enter the pool then there just has to be an inflation like there is a monetary inflation when more money begins to circulate. Especially you, who uses terms like bottom feeder should be highly aware of that.
No, it's different.
More money makes higher prices.
More players however, mean less points / player.
And no, players do not start with enough points to cause inflation.
Take me for example - I started as a 694. Now I am a 1721 (USCF, I have not played enough FIDE games for relevance). In gaining over 1000 points I had to have caused most of my opponents to lose points. Thus, ratings should be deflating, no inflating. Rating inflation makes no sense. Yes, there are more total points, but there are less points per player, so there are less average rating points, and inflation does not exist.
On the other hand, one could theoretically claim that the rating of the select few on the highest end of the scale (or the lowest) is increasing (decreasing for the lowest), as more players means that some will be further from the mean. But this is like saying we have more players so some players will be better, so it really doesn't affect the achievments of the players.
I guess the only way to argue that rating inflation does exist is based on rating floors, but I cannot believe that this would cause a substantial change from rating deflation to rating inflation of 7 points a year. Maybe a smaller inflation is occuring, but Fischer's rating would not be 2939.
Also, just looking at the rating gain of the top players is misleading as more and more players are playing chess, and computers are getting stronger, the top players are getting better, so their ratings should increase. This flawed process is how I assume they calculated your 7 points a year.
so basically inflation does exist, you just pointed it out the top get more from the bottom.
No, the bottom get more from the top, I said, which causes deflation.
I gained 1000 points, thus someone at around 1600-1800 had to lose points. But they improved and probably gained points too, so someone higher lost points, and eventually everyones rating increases but deflates.
In clearer words, everyone gains rating points, but they improve more and are underrated, due to rating deflation. Those at the top who don't improve anymore, or those who are stuck at their peak (even class players) will lose rating points.
That link is useless, as I said it uses the flawed process of looking at the rating of the top players to calculate inflation. It doesn't consider the possibility that ratings haven't changed, the players have just improved. In my last post I pointed out the flaws of this sort of test. Yes, inflation may exist (mainly due to rating floors), but this study of it is extremely scientifically flawed, there is not only one independent variable, but multiple.
The study you posted acknowledges this problem but only briefly addresses it.
"The sharp onset of the rating increase would also seem to be strong evidence against the idea that play is simply improving gradually over the years and that the increases are real." (end quote)
In my opinion it is strong evidence that players like Kasparov or Karpov, along with the beginning of computers, began to rapidly increase chess education.
shepi13 wrote:
The study you posted acknowledges this problem but only briefly addresses it.
"The sharp onset of the rating increase would also seem to be strong evidence against the idea that play is simply improving gradually over the years and that the increases are real." (end quote)
In my opinion it is strong evidence that players like Kasparov or Karpov, along with the beginning of computers, began to rapidly increase chess education.
but that doesnt mean that the players at the top all get stronger then the rest, because the rest has also access to the information. So that is no logical explanation for the rating increase for the top 50 players after the top ten.
But, then everyone is better, so inflation doesn't matter. If everyone gets stronger, and ratings go up, it just fits. The entire point of inflation is to say that players from the past are as good as players like Carlsen or Kasparov, and you have just admitted it is untrue. If Fischer played today, his rating wouldn't be 2900 plus, because even if ratings have gone up so has strength, and his strength would still be good for 1972.
carlsen
shepi13 wrote:
But, then everyone is better, so inflation doesn't matter. If everyone gets stronger, and ratings go up, it just fits. The entire point of inflation is to say that players from the past are as good as players like Carlsen or Kasparov, and you have just admitted it is untrue. If Fischer played today, his rating wouldn't be 2900 plus, because even if ratings have gone up so has strength, and his strength would still be good for 1972.
well im not a lawyer so i dont keep track of slights in logic, but definetly Fischer would be over 2900, when even that kid Carlsen manages 2880.
Apr 1, 2013
0
#89
Tetsuo, in your opinion, how much have ratings been inflated since 1972?
And how do you account for whatever number you came up with?
SmyslovFan wrote:
Tetsuo, in your opinion, how much have ratings been inflated since 1972?
And how do you account for whatever number you came up with?
that was a very smart joke, but yeah i guess 200 points.
kasparov maybe
I think you should search on Google or Bing.
pseudo-creep is the highest rated ever, i think.
stewartkwok wrote:
I think you should search on Google or Bing.
yea its a pretty concrete answer. If the thread was even "who is highest rated this month" that's at least arguable, in the sense players switch spots.
magnus carlsen with his highest rating (2882)
I think Fischer was the most dominant player ever based on elo rating.I just checked it and it turns out that Fischer in the early '70's and Capablanca in the early '20's were the two most dominant players in the history of chess.
No. His rating would be about 2939ish.
lol