Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Subscriber kNIGHTHEAD
    aka DEFIANT
    29 Mar '08 21:43 / 3 edits
    http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2354
  2. Subscriber kNIGHTHEAD
    aka DEFIANT
    29 Mar '08 21:44 / 1 edit
    Double post
  3. 29 Mar '08 21:44 / 2 edits
    Ratings are not comparable over time.
  4. Subscriber kNIGHTHEAD
    aka DEFIANT
    29 Mar '08 21:50
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Ratings are not comparable over time.
    really?...can you qualify that statement for me please...
  5. 29 Mar '08 21:56
    Originally posted by kNIGHTHEAD
    http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2354
    If I were back in 1971, I guess I'd really be excited about this.
  6. 29 Mar '08 22:01
    Originally posted by kNIGHTHEAD
    really?...can you qualify that statement for me please...
    Do I have to?
    Is there not an inflation or reflation in the current rating system?
  7. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    29 Mar '08 22:03
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Do I have to?
    Is there not an inflation or reflation in the current rating system?
    Yep but chessmetrics take the inflation into account. I think you should first inform yourself and then be categoric. Not the other way around.
  8. 29 Mar '08 22:14
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    Yep but chessmetrics take the inflation into account. I think you should first inform yourself and then be categoric. Not the other way around.
    In absolute figures, you're right.
    In relative figures, the rating value fluctuates over time.

    It's like the cost of one litre of milk. In absolute value it is more expensive as ever. Taken inflation into account, it's cheaper than ever. Or was, until recently.

    I give you a question: What was Fischer's rating in the time of his death? Is this rating comparable in any way withhis rating in his heights? A clue: No.
  9. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    29 Mar '08 22:18
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    In absolute figures, you're right.
    In relative figures, the rating value fluctuates over time.

    It's like the cost of one litre of milk. In absolute value it is more expensive as ever. Taken inflation into account, it's cheaper than ever. Or was, until recently.

    I give you a question: What was Fischer's rating in the time of his death? Is this rating comparable in any way withhis rating in his heights? A clue: No.
    I don't really care that much about ratings. I care about chess knowledge. But if you are interested in those things visit the chessmetrics site. Read, learn and ask questions to the guy that came up with this.

    But anyway if you ask me Fischer's rating at his death was 0. Or if you want his latest rating when he was an active player. But I fail to see your point at comparing his rating at this death to his best years rating... Everyone knows that this a bogus question.
  10. Standard member eldragonfly
    leperchaun messiah
    29 Mar '08 22:23
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    In absolute figures, you're right.
    In relative figures, the rating value fluctuates over time.

    It's like the cost of one litre of milk. In absolute value it is more expensive as ever. Taken inflation into account, it's cheaper than ever. Or was, until recently.

    I give you a question: What was Fischer's rating in the time of his death? Is this rating comparable in any way withhis rating in his heights? A clue: No.
    that does not make any sense, Fischer retired in 1974.
  11. 29 Mar '08 22:27
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    I don't really care that much about ratings. I care about chess knowledge. But if you are interested in those things visit the chessmetrics site. Read, learn and ask questions to the guy that came up with this.

    But anyway if you ask me Fischer's rating at his death was 0. Or if you want his latest rating when he was an active player. But I fail to se ...[text shortened]... is rating at this death to his best years rating... Everyone knows that this a bogus question.
    He had a rating at his death, an official one. (I don't know which thou.) But did he had the skill of this rating, before ie went away? I say no.

    Nor do I care about ratings either. Why? They can't ever show a players true skill, anyway. Only just about. Comparing two ratings over time is not possible either. And that was what I wanted to point out.
  12. 29 Mar '08 22:30
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    In absolute figures, you're right.
    In relative figures, the rating value fluctuates over time.

    It's like the cost of one litre of milk. In absolute value it is more expensive as ever. Taken inflation into account, it's cheaper than ever. Or was, until recently.

    I give you a question: What was Fischer's rating in the time of his death? Is this rating comparable in any way withhis rating in his heights? A clue: No.
    Talking of milk...do you per-chance own two cow's?
  13. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    29 Mar '08 22:31
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Comparing two ratings over time is not possible either. And that was what I wanted to point out.
    Yes it is. It may not be very accurate but it is possible. Go to the site and read his methods and then make up your mind. Don't make up your mind right away. And read all four articles on this question. He mentions a lot of good points.
  14. Standard member Redmike
    Godless Commie
    30 Mar '08 23:51 / 1 edit
    This 2895 number you refer to isn't a rating in the normal sense of the term.

    It is a 'chessmetrics rating', a device the author invents to try and compare players across time.

    Regular ratings aren't comprable in this way.