Tweet
Question:
Do you think that at some point there was rating inflation in the CFC rating system (Consider some Ontario players: Their rating in 1970 and then in 2000 - often increases of at least 200 pts. are seen in some of the better players: Lawrence Day, Peter Murray, David Jackson)?
Rating Inflation/Rating Deflation
I am never sure if the way I conceptualize these terms is the way that is intended....so with that caveat...........
Take a GMx 30 years ago (1995) - his/her skill level was equated to the rating number 2700. Come forward to 2000 - GMx - his rating is now 2800!
So let's say Jeff Sonas does a comparative calculation (My creation, not his) and low and behold he finds that this GM's skill level in his prime, is almost exactly the same as later!
So the assessment is that the rating system has gone out of whack......there has been rating "inflation"........a higher rating no longer indicates increase in skill level....it is just the number comparison increasing, due to some unknown factors.
Now take the same scenario..........Jeff Sonas determines that indeed the Skill Quality of the year 2025 current 2800 GMy is indeed 100 points higher than in 1995 This is the system working properly! Explanation - computerization has raised the whole system.....the quality of chess, with computer analysis, has indeed been raised and those who are able to benefit from it education-wise have, accordingly, been beating their peers, legitimately gaining rating points.
So which do you think has occurred. Did David, Peter & Lawrence actually play better chess after benefiting from increasing their skill level through AI study?
Problem
I did some research, attempting to use Google. I wanted to know if the CFC, after my 1965-6 membership in the German-Canadian Club in London, Ontario, upwardly adjusted the Canadian ratings to combat it having gone out of whack a bit (I think it was called the "rating boon"?).
Apparently at some point up to 2000, there was an upward across the board rating jump:
Google:
U 982 - 188 pt. increase
1028-1196 - 133 pt. increase
1204 - 1395 - 127 pt. increase
1404 - 1509 - the AI overview cut off at this point for some unknown reason
I am not a great researcher, and maybe one of you can find better facts on this than I have. The data seems incomplete and oddly done in my opinion......but I'm just a layman on this......
But this is a sudden 150 rating pt. jump!! If David, Peter and Lawrence were about 200 pts. higher in 2000, could this be the answer....... it was not inflation......and it was not that they had increased their skill level. It was merely that the rating system adjusted all to bring the skill=rating formula back into the traditional relationship of some 30 years earlier?
Rating Deflation?
On Jan. 1, 2025, the CFC determined that the Canadian rating system was out of whack again. FIDE & USCF had already given a one-time across the board increase to combat "rating deflation". Their assessment: There was a flood of new players into the system......they were very decently rated, though never having been a CFC member before. They were the online players, dipping their toes for the first time into OTB rated tournaments.
But online IS different from OTB - writing moves, punching clocks, theatrics of your opponent live across the table from you, arbiters, spectators, a bustling playing hall, if you are normal gender, some very attractive players of the opposite sex, etc.
Consequence?
They do badly in their first OTB tournament.....they become right from the get-go, "under-rated". So then they spend the next couple of years beating up on us older players allegedly higher-rated, and they "steal" our rating points. But we aren't really playing at a lower skill level, are we? We're really being beaten by more skilful players, but the system has no way of knowing this for years, when the under-rated's, finally get the rating they should have had years earlier when they started. The result is the average rating of the pool went down.
What CFC Did
So on Jan. 1, 2025, my CFC rating jumped from 1345 to 1604 ...........159 pt. increase, just because I was still alive and playing!!
CFC believed I had unjustly suffered embarrassment and sleepless nights for years, seeing my rating go down when I was not playing worse (Sounds good to me). So now my skill level/rating no. equivalent, was brought back into the old traditional alignment.
Invitation
So go ahead now and chew on all this, and tell me what you think (Be kind about my ignorance!).
Bob A (Very erratic chess player)
Do you think that at some point there was rating inflation in the CFC rating system (Consider some Ontario players: Their rating in 1970 and then in 2000 - often increases of at least 200 pts. are seen in some of the better players: Lawrence Day, Peter Murray, David Jackson)?
Rating Inflation/Rating Deflation
I am never sure if the way I conceptualize these terms is the way that is intended....so with that caveat...........
Take a GMx 30 years ago (1995) - his/her skill level was equated to the rating number 2700. Come forward to 2000 - GMx - his rating is now 2800!
So let's say Jeff Sonas does a comparative calculation (My creation, not his) and low and behold he finds that this GM's skill level in his prime, is almost exactly the same as later!
So the assessment is that the rating system has gone out of whack......there has been rating "inflation"........a higher rating no longer indicates increase in skill level....it is just the number comparison increasing, due to some unknown factors.
Now take the same scenario..........Jeff Sonas determines that indeed the Skill Quality of the year 2025 current 2800 GMy is indeed 100 points higher than in 1995 This is the system working properly! Explanation - computerization has raised the whole system.....the quality of chess, with computer analysis, has indeed been raised and those who are able to benefit from it education-wise have, accordingly, been beating their peers, legitimately gaining rating points.
So which do you think has occurred. Did David, Peter & Lawrence actually play better chess after benefiting from increasing their skill level through AI study?
Problem
I did some research, attempting to use Google. I wanted to know if the CFC, after my 1965-6 membership in the German-Canadian Club in London, Ontario, upwardly adjusted the Canadian ratings to combat it having gone out of whack a bit (I think it was called the "rating boon"?).
Apparently at some point up to 2000, there was an upward across the board rating jump:
Google:
U 982 - 188 pt. increase
1028-1196 - 133 pt. increase
1204 - 1395 - 127 pt. increase
1404 - 1509 - the AI overview cut off at this point for some unknown reason
I am not a great researcher, and maybe one of you can find better facts on this than I have. The data seems incomplete and oddly done in my opinion......but I'm just a layman on this......
But this is a sudden 150 rating pt. jump!! If David, Peter and Lawrence were about 200 pts. higher in 2000, could this be the answer....... it was not inflation......and it was not that they had increased their skill level. It was merely that the rating system adjusted all to bring the skill=rating formula back into the traditional relationship of some 30 years earlier?
Rating Deflation?
On Jan. 1, 2025, the CFC determined that the Canadian rating system was out of whack again. FIDE & USCF had already given a one-time across the board increase to combat "rating deflation". Their assessment: There was a flood of new players into the system......they were very decently rated, though never having been a CFC member before. They were the online players, dipping their toes for the first time into OTB rated tournaments.
But online IS different from OTB - writing moves, punching clocks, theatrics of your opponent live across the table from you, arbiters, spectators, a bustling playing hall, if you are normal gender, some very attractive players of the opposite sex, etc.
Consequence?
They do badly in their first OTB tournament.....they become right from the get-go, "under-rated". So then they spend the next couple of years beating up on us older players allegedly higher-rated, and they "steal" our rating points. But we aren't really playing at a lower skill level, are we? We're really being beaten by more skilful players, but the system has no way of knowing this for years, when the under-rated's, finally get the rating they should have had years earlier when they started. The result is the average rating of the pool went down.
What CFC Did
So on Jan. 1, 2025, my CFC rating jumped from 1345 to 1604 ...........159 pt. increase, just because I was still alive and playing!!
CFC believed I had unjustly suffered embarrassment and sleepless nights for years, seeing my rating go down when I was not playing worse (Sounds good to me). So now my skill level/rating no. equivalent, was brought back into the old traditional alignment.
Invitation
So go ahead now and chew on all this, and tell me what you think (Be kind about my ignorance!).
Bob A (Very erratic chess player)
Comment