29 Mar 08
Originally posted by adam warlockIn absolute figures, you're right.
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 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.
29 Mar 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI 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.
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.
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.
29 Mar 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasthat does not make any sense, Fischer retired in 1974.
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.
29 Mar 08
Originally posted by adam warlockHe 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.
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.
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.
29 Mar 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasTalking of milk...do you per-chance own two cow's?
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.
29 Mar 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes 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.
Comparing two ratings over time is not possible either. And that was what I wanted to point out.