COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Sid Belzberg]

I have some good news for you Bob. Your rating decline is only 546 points and most of that is attributable to general rating deflation.
It is simple demographics related to the severe shift to a younger pool of chess players. This began before COVID and was accelerated when play resumed after COVID.

My decline was almost 700 points, and many others have similar stories.

We are not mad cows.

Really? I play online chess, and my rating fluctuates in the same tight range it has for years: expert-weak master. I haven't seen hoards of young ones
clean my clock all of a sudden. please explain. I play mostly five-minute blitz.

[Pargat Perrer]

I have some good news for you Bob. Your rating decline is only 546 points and most of that is attributable to general rating deflation.
It is simple demographics related to the severe shift to a younger pool of chess players. This began before COVID and was accelerated when play resumed after COVID.

My decline was almost 700 points, and many others have similar stories.

We are not mad cows.

How about "angry bulls"? LOL

[Pargat Perrer]

Really? I play online chess, and my rating fluctuates in the same tight range it has for years: expert-weak master. I haven't seen hoards of young ones
clean my clock all of a sudden. please explain. I play mostly five-minute blitz.

5 minute blitz is all about cheapos.

Try 40 moves in 2 hours against the youngsters to see where you really are.

[Neil Frarey]

5 minute blitz is all about cheapos.

Try 40 moves in 2 hours against the youngsters to see where you really are.

LOOL spoken like a true patzer, ha!

[Bob Gillanders]

Really? I play online chess, and my rating fluctuates in the same tight range it has for years: expert-weak master. I haven't seen hoards of young ones
clean my clock all of a sudden. please explain. I play mostly five-minute blitz.

Yes, really. But I speak only of OTB rating systems. Online ratings are a completely different animal.

[Sid Belzberg]

Yes, really. But I speak only of OTB rating systems. Online ratings are a completely different animal

So your proposition is that an influx of highly skilled youth has captured rating points, leading to significant rating deflation of the older generation of chess players? I am not sure if online ratings are a completely different animal. Youth are more into online chess, and hence I would expect that they would float to the top of the ratings and someone like me would get beaten down to the level of a beginner based on the lurid descriptions of rating declines of Bob A and yourself. Bob A was not much different than me at around 1900.
I don't see any evidence of anything like that happening to me.
This would make an interesting study: vax versus unwaxed chess player rating evolution post-vax. It would factor out the "more skilled young chess players stealing the rating points theory" or prove your hypothesis correct if vax status makes no difference.

[Bob Gillanders]

So your proposition is that an influx of highly skilled youth has captured rating points, leading to significant rating deflation of the older generation of chess players? I am not sure if online ratings are a completely different animal. Youth are more into online chess, and hence I would expect that they would float to the top of the ratings and someone like me would get beaten down to the level of a beginner based on the lurid descriptions of rating declines of Bob A and yourself. Bob A was not much different than me at around 1900.
I don't see any evidence of anything like that happening to me.
This would make an interesting study: vax versus unwaxed chess player rating evolution post-vax. It would factor out the "more skilled young chess players stealing the rating points theory" or prove your hypothesis correct if vax status makes no difference.

Oh Sid, that really does not describe accurately my comments. It has been discussed previously here and on CFC forum. If you want to research that yourself, great.
The 2 Bob's and others brought up this issue years ago, and we struggled to gain wide spread acceptance that rating deflation was real, not a hoax.
But then the mathematicians at FIDE came to the same conclusion. So much so that they did a rating adjustment upward as of March 1, 2024.
You could review their findings as well. Again, we are talking about OTB ratings only, not online ratings.

Of course, the ratings decline of the Bob's is a combination of numerous factors, including aging etc. we acknowledge that.

Have a nice day.

[Bob Armstrong]

Bob G:

Wait.......aging as a factor......hmmm.......79 y.o. next month.......really hate to admit anything, you know.........rather keep it a mystery......Bob A hasn't a clue why his rating plunged like a shooting star.

Oh....OK.......yup.......with age you are not quite as alert as you used to be........seems true across the board, not just in chess.

OK....... Your "we acknowledge" is, begrudgingly, accepted on this end.

Bob A

[Neil Frarey]

This would make an interesting study: vax versus unvaxed chess player rating evolution post-vax. It would factor out the "more skilled young chess players stealing the rating points theory" or prove your hypothesis correct if vax status makes no difference.

Fascinating idea, Sid!

[Pargat Perrer]

So your proposition is that an influx of highly skilled youth has captured rating points, leading to significant rating deflation of the older generation of chess players? I am not sure if online ratings are a completely different animal. Youth are more into online chess, and hence I would expect that they would float to the top of the ratings and someone like me would get beaten down to the level of a beginner based on the lurid descriptions of rating declines of Bob A and yourself. Bob A was not much different than me at around 1900.
I don't see any evidence of anything like that happening to me.
This would make an interesting study: vax versus unwaxed chess player rating evolution post-vax. It would factor out the "more skilled young chess players stealing the rating points theory" or prove your hypothesis correct if vax status makes no difference.

I have 2 reactions to this.

First, I remember in the waning days of covid, the tennis player Novak Djokevich (?) who is still to this day unvaxxed was beating all of his vaxxed opponents, and even the young superstar Alcaraz, only 20 years old I think, played him in the French Open final and lost ... by ALMOST COLLAPSING of exhaustion. He had cramps, he was almost vomiting .... at just 20 years old and in supposedly superb condition.

So at that time, it lent credence to the idea of the vax doing harm to all of the high-ranked tennis players and the non-vaxxed one rose to the top.

But now only a year later, or 2 years later I'm not sure, it's no longer the case. The younger vaxxed players are now back to their normal strength. So IF there was this influence of the vax on athletic performance, it is now disappearing.

Second .... maybe Sid the reason you only play 5 minute blitz is because you are suffering aging decline that affects not your rating, but your ability to even sit and play for 4 or 5 hours a single game. And to repeat that for 5 games over 2 days, a typical weekend tournament situation, which Bob G and Bob A seem able to handle, albeit with worse results than in the past.

I have serious doubts whether Sid could mentally and physically handle a weekend tournament like that. And if he did, I think maybe he'd see the same kind of aging decline in his results as Bob G and Bob A.

[Sid Belzberg]

I have 2 reactions to this.

First, I remember in the waning days of covid, the tennis player Novak Djokevich (?) who is still to this day unvaxxed was beating all of his vaxxed opponents, and even the young superstar Alcaraz, only 20 years old I think, played him in the French Open final and lost ... by ALMOST COLLAPSING of exhaustion. He had cramps, he was almost vomiting .... at just 20 years old and in supposedly superb condition.

So at that time, it lent credence to the idea of the vax doing harm to all of the high-ranked tennis players and the non-vaxxed one rose to the top.

But now only a year later, or 2 years later I'm not sure, it's no longer the case. The younger vaxxed players are now back to their normal strength. So IF there was this influence of the vax on athletic performance, it is now disappearing.

Second .... maybe Sid the reason you only play 5 minute blitz is because you are suffering aging decline that affects not your rating, but your ability to even sit and play for 4 or 5 hours a single game. And to repeat that for 5 games over 2 days, a typical weekend tournament situation, which Bob G and Bob A seem able to handle, albeit with worse results than in the past.

I have serious doubts whether Sid could mentally and physically handle a weekend tournament like that. And if he did, I think maybe he'd see the same kind of aging decline in his results as Bob G and Bob A.

I am happy to play in an OTB weekender. How much do you want to wager that my performance rating will be within 50 points up or dowm of where it is now?

[Bob Armstrong]

Sid - where do you hang out?

I'll buy you a coffee and a croissant of your choice at my favourite local French Bakery/Coffee Shop on the Danforth in Toronto.

If you are not in Toronto, then whenever you visit.

Beware these up & coming juniors.

It is my opinion that the 1600 level of their play today would be the level we would have called 1800 30 years ago. Many tournament players of my vintage agree.

Accept?

I don't know what the h*ll we'd talk about where we could agree on something.......maybe that the NWO/Great Reset is well in progress?

Bob A (CFC Standard 1365)

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid - where do you hang out?

I'll buy you a coffee and a croissant of your choice at my favourite local French Bakery/Coffee Shop on the Danforth in Toronto.

If you are not in Toronto, then whenever you visit.

Beware these up & coming juniors.

It is my opinion that the 1600 level of their play today would be the level we would have called 1800 30 years ago. Many tournament players of my vintage agree.

Accept?

I don't know what the h*ll we'd talk about where we could agree on something.......maybe that the NWO/Great Reset is well in progress?

Bob A (CFC Standard 1365)

Hi Bob,
I will return home to Toronto in a few weeks and would enjoy meeting you at the Danforth for a coffee. Remember that the Fide Formula used in March 2024 to
give away rating points is .4*(2000-rating), so this formula has almost zero impact on players at or around 2000 or greater. This was designed for players below 2000; hence, despite stronger junior players, I expect my performance rating will not change much, as at least my blitz rating has not changed much.

[Bob Armstrong]

Sid: You are right about the rating adjustment impact, as far as I understand it.

Thanks for accepting my invitation to coffee, whether you have played in a Standard CFC-rated tournament by then, which has been rated, or not. Would enjoy meeting you.

The one condition attached to my offer is that I am out of Toronto most of the time, except winter.So I cannot commit to necessarily coming back to enjoy your company. So it may be that collection on my offer may have to be rescheduled to some time in Toronto suitable to both of us.

Nice bet......at least it is not that I have to defeat you to win.......likely Rook odds would be insufficient!

Bob A (Senior Patzer)

[Pargat Perrer]

I am happy to play in an OTB weekender. How much do you want to wager that my performance rating will be within 50 points up or dowm of where it is now?

You tempt me because I'm a poker player .... but no need to wager, just play in the tournament and report the results. What is your age? Bob A is about to turn 79 and I'm just guessing Bob G is early 60s.

EDIT: having a wager would only make it more likely you would do a lot of "booking up" before the event. Don't bother with that, just play in the tournament and see where you are, with no special preparations.

Also, I think a more interesting study to do would be to compare declines with age in blitz chess versus declines in age in slow classical chess. Now that might be something to wager about, if the study were done with total transparency. I would be prepared to wager that such a study would show that declines in blitz take significantly (to be defined) longer to show up than declines in slow chess.

Exactly HOW to do such a study and ensure the data is comparable ... I have no idea. I think it would be difficult and somebody would have to be paid to do it.