If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Reasons to believe there's FIDE rating "inflation"?
He believes there is inflation, but AFAIK his article gives no evidence for this claim. The closest thing he offers is summarized his graph "Inflation of entire rating pool, since 1975". The lines on the graph do show an increase of about 100 points of the ratings of the players ranked 100th, 500th, and 1000th. He also graphs the ratings for the 5000th and 10000th ranked players, though that data is (probably) less reliable, since FIDE had only recently started rating/ranking players that low.
The problem with using this as evidence of inflation is that it is all data from the right hand side of the bell curve.
True, but Sonas' argument is that if the 'apparent' inflation was caused by an increase in the number of players, these gaps would tend to increase (and they don't). Agreed, it's probably not the best way to analyze the data, but the finding is still noteworthy.
And I would not analyze FIDE ratings as a normal distribution in the strict sense. With the rating floor, the pool of FIDE players is probably all on the right-hand side of the Bell curve anyway.
And Sonas' argument about the 'left side' of the curve seems reasonable to me. With the rating floor, you can have the following happening on a constant basis:
-a fairly established and stable 2100 guy goes on a good streak, gets his rating over 2200
-gets in the FIDE ratings pool
-loses some points to stronger opponents and regress back under 2200 (expected)
-leaves the rating pool
So the rating floor can induce an inflow of rating points from the 'left side'.
That would be an inescapable consequence of the playing strength of players entering the rating pool increasing over time. So long as more new and stronger players are entering than leaving, the average rating will go up.
You seem to imply that we have 2500s and 2600s getting in the pool and 2300s and 2400s leaving.
With a rating floor at 2200, most players get in the pool when they reach 2200 and that's it. You cannot bring any 'strength' or whatever.
BTW the key point of my analysis of Sonas's Chessbase article is that he does not give any support to the claim that FIDE ratings are going up on average.
Of course, everyone's noticed that the average rating of the world's top 10 or 100 or 1000 players is going up, but that's not the same thing as the average rating going up (as claims about "inflation" suppose).
Is there any evidence that average FIDE ratings are going up?
And I would not analyze FIDE ratings as a normal distribution in the strict sense. With the rating floor, the pool of FIDE players is probably all on the right-hand side of the Bell curve anyway.
And Sonas' argument about the 'left side' of the curve seems reasonable to me.
Sonas' argument is that if the 'apparent' inflation was caused by an increase in the number of players, these gaps would tend to increase (and they don't). .... the finding is still noteworthy.
That's one of Sonas's arguments, and it is a puzzling observation. I don't know how to explain that one.
I hope I didn't give that impression in my post. Of course it isn't.
But still, Arpad Elo did express concern that ratings should ideally consistently reflect true playing strength over time, and suggested some methods to address this. The Elo system, in and of itself, does not address this.
I think there is a general feeling amongst players that an 1800 rating should say something about the quality of one's play, and that is a normal human desire. The Elo system, in and of itself, cannot do this. It cannot even guarantee that an 1800 player in Canada today will be of the same objective ability as an 1800 player in Brazil today.
I wasn't referring to your post, and I agree that the rating system can't measure "the quality of one's play". Nor should it, in my opinion. If someone wants to set up a program to measure the knowledge or skills of chessplayers and base their (Class) titles on that then I am sure it is possible, but that's not what the titles have ever meant in the past. They are supposed to represent the present-day skill level of the group being measured vs others in the group. So maybe 2% of players are Masters, 3% are Candidate Masters, 10% A-Class players, etc. (or whatever % assigned). I am going to write it again because some people (not you, Ed) are missing the point: you can be improving but your rating can still be going down if people around you are on average improving more than you are improving.
I get the sense that some people would prefer to write a series of exams to prove that they understand chess at a certain level. Maybe there's money in someone devising such a system.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Re: Reasons to believe there's FIDE rating "inflation"?
BTW, I think there is some deflation in the CFC ratings. For example, in Ottawa, you get adults who are borderline 1600-1700s. They have a bad tournament (say go 1-4 in the middle section) and end up having to play in the bottom section of the weekenders. My observation (based on no data) is that there are many fast-improving, under-rated players in the bottom group, and once "trapped" it is hard for those adults to get out. I also think there is inflation at the top of the system. Case in point: me. I'm not alone. ;-) But that's a discussion for another day.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
That's so far out in left field that it's impossible to reply in any reasonable amount of time, so I don't think I'll bother.
OK then, sorry about my poor understanding.
Now, a very simple question:
Given that most players enter the pool with a rating of 2200 and get out at some point later on with a probably higher rating, where do the rating points come from?
BTW, I think there is some deflation in the CFC ratings.
[...]
My observation (based on no data) is that there are many fast-improving, under-rated players in the bottom group,
Exactly: a high turnover of junior players will remove points from the system, for sure. That's what we observe with CFC ratings. Bonus points for participation were used at some point to address this issue (still in use?). But then, as you wrote, the problem is mostly in the lower sections. So maybe the bonus points accumulate somewhere in the higher sections.
In the FQE system, bonus points are awarded if you increase your rating by a large margin in a tournament (i.e. roughly, every rating gain over 30 count as double). Seems to work OK.
But with regard to FIDE ratings:
1- the turnover is extremely slow, players spend decades in the system.
2- the rating floor mitigates the 'underrated juniors' problem.
Which rating system is this? Certainly not FIDE or CFC.
Title of the thread is 'Reasons to believe there's FIDE rating inflation'.
And I'm far out in the left field?? ;)
Historically, FIDE used a rating floor of 2200.
I know it was lowered recently, but I don't know the details and it may take some time before an effect is seen anyway. For the historical data, say between 1975 and 2000-2005, I'm quite sure that a rating floor of 2200 was used.
Not really true. They only published your rating if it was above 2200. NOT the same thing.
I know it was lowered recently, but I don't know the details and it may take some time before an effect is seen anyway. For the historical data, say between 1975 and 2000-2005, I'm quite sure that a rating floor of 2200 was used.
There's a lot you don't know, and some things you think you know that ain't so. Maybe you should get an education on the matter before you leap to conclusions?
Given that most players enter the pool with a rating of 2200 and get out at some point later on with a probably higher rating, where do the rating points come from?
the difference between their original rating and their higher rating comes from taking the points from other players.
That's why when a player leaves with more rating points than he started with he contributes to deflation (the "Points Retired" argument).
There's a lot you don't know, and some things you think you know that ain't so. Maybe you should get an education on the matter before you leap to conclusions?
There's a whole lot of things I don't know. I'll go and get a degree on chess ratings and come back to you with questions that may be worth your precious time...
Tweet
Comment