With the advancement of chess engines, internet play and the great abundance of chess material, I wonder if ratings still mean what they used to. At the top level, it's clear that the level has increased, but what about the lower levels? Would a 1600 20 years ago be equivalent to 1600 today? Would it just be a wipeout?
Originally posted by exigentskyIn my opinion, the 1600 player is stronger than they were, or that I remember back in '98, when I played a fair amount of tournament chess. Hell on here a few of the 1100 - 1200 players play like 1600 + players, in my opinion!!!
With the advancement of chess engines, internet play and the great abundance of chess material, I wonder if ratings still mean what they used to. At the top level, it's clear that the level has increased, but what about the lower levels? Would a 1600 20 years ago be equivalent to 1600 today? Would it just be a wipeout?
Originally posted by Very RustyYes, but some of the 1400 players on here play like 1100's too, dropping pieces to one move tactics.
In my opinion, the 1600 player is stronger than they were, or that I remember back in '98, when I played a fair amount of tournament chess. Hell on here a few of the 1100 - 1200 players play like 1600 + players, in my opinion!!!
In response to the OP, I think that the rating system has some natural inflation built into it--new players enter the rating system (creating points) and older players retire (removing points). As people generally improve over their career this results in a net reduction of average ratings.
In order to compensate for this, an inflation factor is incorporated into the ratings system. I'm not sure how it is for USCF/FIDE, but in Australia they have what is called a 'k factor', and this k factor allocates a bonus number of points to reward you for good perormances in a single tournament (or sometimes rating period).
If the k factor is set correctly then average ratings will stay the same, but as the ratio of incoming to retiring players is always changing it is impossible to have it set accurately for all rating periods. My gut feeling is that the k factor is probably slightly too high, leading to ratings inflation over time.
Someone correct me if I am wrong!
Originally posted by droflaceI think you are correct, but I thought that instead of the k factor ELO introduced that idea as the results of the players lower than 1600 not to be counted or something like this...so the players can go down to minimum 1600 in elo lists...
Yes, but some of the 1400 players on here play like 1100's too, dropping pieces to one move tactics.
In response to the OP, I think that the rating system has some natural inflation built into it--new players enter the rating system (creating points) and older players retire (removing points). As people generally improve over their career this results in ...[text shortened]... ghtly too high, leading to ratings inflation over time.
Someone correct me if I am wrong!
Maybe they should decrease this to 1500...
Interesting question. I started postal chess in 1959 in what would be equal to about 1500 today and played in my first otb event in 1961 and received a rating of 1667. By the late 60’s or early 70’s I was around 2095 otb and near 2000 cc when I all but gave up chess. I returned to cc play about 4-5 years ago and today my postal rating (as used for ICCF events) is 2057.
When I first started otb the lowest rating you could get was 1200 and when you played anybody under 1500 you could expect them to drop pieces like flies. Sometime after the Fischer Boom the USCF was concerned with deflation because of the great influx of players. USCF membership jumped from around 5-6000 to 60-80,000. They started adding what were known as “bonus” points and “fiddle” points. You could get rating points simply for playing and the floor was dropped from 1200 to 0. One long time 1700 I knew went to over 2000 in a year. When I asked him where his new found skills came from he said all he did was play up in a whole lot of tournaments so he could collect his bonus & fiddle points. At that time the USCF rating guys were politicians, not mathematicians, and the whole idea apparently had no sound basis. Any ratings people obtained after the bonus/fiddle point era had to be inflated. For example had my friend really improved 300 points? No but anybody who played him had their rating based on his 2000+ rating so this post-Fischer Boom messing with the rating system clouds the issue.
I’ve been told 1400’s no longer drop pieces and from the couple I’ve played in cc their level does seem much higher. On the other hand analyzing my old games from back in the 60’s with Fritz gives me the impression my play wasn’t much worse than it is today but I think players at the lower end play at a much higher level. But as you approach 2200 things seem about the same. I think if you transported a 1400 of today back to the 60’s they’d be at least a class higher but am not so sure a 2000 would be a master. In the 60’s I did play cc vs. some 2400+ otb players of the day but my skill level isn’t good enough to judge the quality of their play. All I know is they beat the crap out of me. Does any of this make sense?