FIDE on Chess Rating Inflation |
| Written by Administrator | ||||
| Saturday, 13 July 2013 | ||||
  A few interesting proposals have been made by the QC Council of FIDE regarding rating coefficients of the players and the chess rating system in general. The popular topic of "rating inflation" in chess has also been addressed. Note about rating inflation: The QC has also been analyzing the FIDE historical database of ratings and game results in order to better understand "rating inflation" in the FIDE rating pool. Although a quick glance at the top of the rating list in recent years suggests a clear overall "inflationary" trend, the actual situation is much more complex. Among the players rated 2000 or higher, only the ratings of the 2700+ group are increasing, whereas on average, all players rated 2000-2700 are actually losing rating points each year! (bold - Pogonina.com) For instance there are fewer active players rated 2200+ each year. In fact the differences in playing strength among the strongest players appear to be gradually increasing more and more, as a fairly clear trend for the past 20 years - the ratings of the top two or three thousand players are stretching apart more and more. So for instance we see that the difference in strength between #50 and #500 on the rating list is gradually increasing, as is the difference between #100 and #1,000, between #500 and #5,000, etc. This can be seen both from inspection of the rating list, as well as direct measurement of head-to-head games over time between players of comparable ranks on the rating list. Thus the ever-increasing ratings of the top 100 should perhaps be viewed, not as an undesirable artifact of the rating calculation, but rather as a desirable reaction of the rating system to this overall change in the distribution of top player strengths. View the rest of the document Commentary by Pogonina.com Editor Peter Zhdanov: 1) The general public say "rating inflation" and imply that a modern player rated X is weaker than someone who was rated X 10 or 20 years ago. Nevertheless, it is widely known among experts that the overall increase in playing strength (largely due to computer technologies) and lowering of the rating floor and continuous introduction of young underrated chess players into the rating system has led to a deflation. As an example, here is a Freakonomics article. I can feel it on my own skin when playing opponents with ratings of 2000 and above. Ten years ago many of them knew theory up to like move 5-10 and didn't use any chess software whatsoever. Nowadays many young players memorize lines up to move 15-20 and generally study chess a lot using databases and other software. If you asked me whom I would rather challenge: a 2000+ bloke from the past (10-20 years ago), or a modern one, I would obviously pick the former if I wanted relatively easy points. 2) The phenomenon described in the note is well-known. "Money attracts more money", or "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer". Essentially, athletes with a rating below 2700 (as long as they are men) can hardly expect to make a living by playing chess. Stress, necessity to look for other sources of income, never-ending "concert tours" from one open event to another - all this causes their potential to stay undeveloped and ensures a gap between the elite (pro) players and everyone else. Moreover, in open events the top seeds usually face opponents who are performing much better than expected. For instance, a 2300+ playing like a 2600 at the moment. Obviously, this jeopardizes the overall result of the rating favorites. If a 2500 scores 50% against such opponents, he will shed rating points, while in the reality he has basically performed at 2600 level. In round robin events (super tournaments) this is not the case: there are both players who are performing relatively well, and those on the decline. This is another reason why the chess elite is changing so slowly: they are playing within their own closed circle.
Write Comment |
||||
| Last Updated ( Saturday, 13 July 2013 ) | ||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|