1. SubscriberkNIGHTHEAD
    aka DEFIANT
    Joined
    29 Nov '06
    Moves
    90848
    29 Mar '08 21:433 edits
    http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2354
  2. SubscriberkNIGHTHEAD
    aka DEFIANT
    Joined
    29 Nov '06
    Moves
    90848
    29 Mar '08 21:441 edit
    Double post
  3. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    29 Mar '08 21:442 edits
    Ratings are not comparable over time.
  4. SubscriberkNIGHTHEAD
    aka DEFIANT
    Joined
    29 Nov '06
    Moves
    90848
    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. Joined
    19 Jun '06
    Moves
    847
    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. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    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 memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    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. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    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 memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    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 membereldragonfly
    leperchaun messiah
    thru a glass onion
    Joined
    19 Apr '03
    Moves
    16870
    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. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    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. SubscriberChris Guffogg
    Alekhine's Gun
    🤔 Bolton
    Joined
    10 May '07
    Moves
    159227
    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 memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    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 memberRedmike
    Godless Commie
    Glasgow
    Joined
    06 Jan '04
    Moves
    171019
    30 Mar '08 23:511 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.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree