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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 31 Mar '07 13:42
    It seems pretty clear that (at least in the USCF) ratings are inflating. For example, if you take a look at the top 100 8 year olds, for example, number 100 was 1248 in April 2002. 5 Years later, number 100 is 1345. There are similar examples elsewhere? Why are ratings inflating? I think it is because of floors. People who are at their floor are probably rated 100-300 points below their floor. However, when they are beaten, their opponents gain rating points as if they were at their floor in strength! For example, a guy with an 1800 floor keeps hitting the floor. In all likely hood, his real strength is 1600. However, whenever some beats him, they gain points as if he was an 1800.

    I don't know why the USCF has floors, and I think they should be removed.
  2. 31 Mar '07 13:54
    I don't know anything about the floors but another reason for seeing these extremely high USCF 8 year olds is that they only play each other for the most part, due to age bracket divisions. This means that the same people keep beating the same people and their rating goes up and up. It's the same way it is in our county. The same guy (1800ish now) beats everyone in our county. He wins all the cash tournaments, wins all the rated tournaments etc. as a result his rating is probably a good 100pts or so higher than it should be. This theory has been proved true for 4 straight years of high school state-where he ALWAYS placed lower than he started (this year he was 3rd going in and he ended up with 2.5/5 and got a 3rd for all seniors [12th graders] who didnt end up in the top 10. Simply put, he got like 20th instead of 3rd).
  3. 31 Mar '07 14:28
    Two things

    1st are Magnus Carlsen and other 15 year old GMs not deserving of their incredible rating because it hasn't happened before? People have learned that the earlier you start learning a skill/game the better you become (look at when female tennis players start learning and then break into the pro game at 16!).

    2nd regarding floors while they may slightly inflate ratings, their purpose is to prevent sandbagging. Which is the lesser evil?
  4. 31 Mar '07 15:02
    Originally posted by zebano
    Two things

    1st are Magnus Carlsen and other 15 year old GMs not deserving of their incredible rating because it hasn't happened before? People have learned that the earlier you start learning a skill/game the better you become (look at when female tennis players start learning and then break into the pro game at 16!).

    2nd regarding floors while they may slightly inflate ratings, their purpose is to prevent sandbagging. Which is the lesser evil?
    Good point.I hadn't thought about the sandbagging issue; though I do remember I think on the ask GM Joel column that he said you can petition to have your floor removed; there's no easy solution....
  5. 31 Mar '07 16:16
    Originally posted by zebano
    Two things

    1st are Magnus Carlsen and other 15 year old GMs not deserving of their incredible rating because it hasn't happened before? People have learned that the earlier you start learning a skill/game the better you become (look at when female tennis players start learning and then break into the pro game at 16!).

    2nd regarding floors while they may slightly inflate ratings, their purpose is to prevent sandbagging. Which is the lesser evil?
    16 year old girls can break into tennis because the level of competition is seriously lacking in depth, especially compared to the mens game.
  6. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    31 Mar '07 16:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Simonjs
    16 year old girls can break into tennis because the level of competition is seriously lacking in depth, especially compared to the mens game.
    rafael nadal was 15 when he won his first ATP game.
  7. 31 Mar '07 16:28
    Originally posted by wormwood
    rafael nadal was 15 when he won his first ATP game.
    he was also built like a 25 year old by the time he was 17.
  8. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    31 Mar '07 16:31
    Originally posted by Simonjs
    he was also built like a 25 year old by the time he was 17.
    he was 17 when he was 17.
  9. 31 Mar '07 16:38
    Originally posted by wormwood
    he was 17 when he was 17.
    ok, but most 17 year olds aren't as physically developed as a 25 year old.
    He was....
  10. 31 Mar '07 19:41
    I started playing in the 60’s with a mid-1600 rating (the lowest rating you could get was 1200) and today it’s in the low 2000’s. Funny thing is annofritzing those old games shows they weren’t played any worse than the ones I play today. If I remember right most top players in those days were rated 2450 or so, then it went to mid-2500’s, then “super GM’s” that were over 2600. Who knows where ratings will stop? In the 70’s with the Fischer boom I saw a whole lot of 1700-1800 players suddenly shoot up to 2000, not because they got better over night. I think it had something to do with the rating system and all the new players coming in. It was causing deflation so the USCF started “fiddle points” (as in fiddling with the ratings). There for a while you got points just for showing up and playing and they had tweaked the rating formula in other ways that helped inflate ratings. People were racking up points all over the place!
  11. 31 Mar '07 19:57
    After five YEARS, one single 8 year old is 97 points higher than the best rated 8 year old in 2002? Out of the many THOUSANDS?
    That is not inflation. Take a basic math class in statistics/probability and educate yourself.
  12. 31 Mar '07 20:04
    Originally posted by Ubersuck
    After five YEARS, one single 8 year old is 97 points higher than the best rated 8 year old in 2002? Out of the many THOUSANDS?
    That is not inflation. Take a basic math class in statistics/probability and educate yourself.
    I am talking about number 100 on the list, the entry point for the top 100. To enter the top 100 8 year olds, it has gotten 97 points harder, suggesting inflation.