As a person who has been on-again off-again with chess since around 1984, I have felt that a rating of say 1500 today represents more actual skill than the same rating would have 15 years ago. My theory is that improved computer software has made it so easy for anyone to hone their skills, that there has been an arms race in which all have gotten better (and thus it takes more skill to gain points).
Any opinions or perspectives on this?
Originally posted by techsouthNo
As a person who has been on-again off-again with chess since around 1984, I have felt that a rating of say 1500 today represents more actual skill than the same rating would have 15 years ago. My theory is that improved computer software has made it so easy for anyone to hone their skills, that there has been an arms race in which all have gotten better (and thus it takes more skill to gain points).
Any opinions or perspectives on this?
I agree.
A considerable number of active rated players in the United States today are youth, many of whom are underrated. When a rapidly improving youth eneters an adult event, adults lose rating points. I suspect the influx of children has lowered ratings over the whole.
I have also run across several people who had ratings in the 1900 range 15-20 years ago, and whose chess skill today more closely resembles that of C players. They often attribute their relatively weak performance to rust, which certainly contributes, but I suspect there is more at work.
I also agree. The internet, as well as a variety of internet sites, has made it immensely easier to learn and play chess. Same goes with computer programs and chess clubs. Many schools, including mine, have chess clubs now. The chess community now encompasses hundreds of thousands of members, partially thanks to internet chess.
It depends where you play your chess. For instance, on varying sites, I'd range between 1600-2000, depending on its competitiveness.