12193 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Here's what I don't like about the rating system:
If Magnus has the highest rating of all time, does that mean he's the greatest of all time, or the greatest among his generation?
No. Ratings are relative only to the rating pool in which they are established.
I think the rating itself is more a relative term than an absolute figure, so comparing players at their peaks based on rating isn't worthwhile.
However, comparing players to their peers based on relative difference in strength does translate moderately well across eras. That's why Fischer's rating dominance of over 100 points above Spassky is really still more significant than Kasparov or Carlsen's achievements.
If you get right down to it, the rating system is flawed when you put it that way. I suspect the number will keep inflating, and the potential expansion of GM titles is indefinite.
Super duper bad mamma jamma grand master!
The rating system isn't flawed, it simply isn't meant to give one an historical ranking of players across eras. That's like saying a refridgerator if flawed if it isn't also a TV. While it might be a great idea, it isn't a flaw that it lacks that feature. Rather, it simply means it wasn't designed that way.
Just because Carlsen's rating is relative to his player pool, doesn't mean his rating is necessarily inflated compared to other generations. It could mean that, but not necessarily.
If rating inflation is real, it definitionally means precisely that, since rating is a reflection of performance, and if his rating is not inflated with regard to a prior era, but the rest of the pool is experiencing rating inflation, then his rating would be higher as his performance would be even better than it has been since he should be scoring better against the opposition than he is. Or perhaps more simply: ratings are calculated relative to one's opponents. If rating inflation is real, then Carlsen's rating has been calculated based on inflated values. This means his rating must be inflated as the inputs to the formula are infalted. It should be noted that there isn't universal agreement that rating inflation is real, or that if it is real, how big an impact it actually has.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your post, but your first sentence is like saying "If A is real, then A must be real." Yes, but I'm not presupposing that A (inflation) is real. I am suggesting the possibility that his rating might be higher not because of inflation, but because of an increase in quality.
Of course, something that would prove rating inflation would be proving that the quality of Carlsen's moves are the same as of a previous generation, even with a higher rating. Some studies have shown that the intrinsic quality of the moves, not just rating, has gone up in general.
Agreed. I think that the middle ground is actually the real story. There is rating inflation, but I think the effect and impact is over-stated. The real big differentiator isn't rating inflation, but the ubiquitousness of computer-assisted training, the quality of the engines and the databases, and the fact that there is a strong pool of still improving players at the top. But I think the evidence for rating inflation is there as well, and I don't think it is easily ignored either.
Simuls aren't reated for a reason, FEDTEL ;)
why? do you mean that masters don't play seriously? I know that they may allow a draw sometimes just to finish the games and go back home, but a loss? I think that's too much for them
Lets say GM is 2700, playing a simul against 60 people who average at 1200. Then lets say GM spends 15 seconds per move, making each turn 15 minutes long for the kids. This is a huge time penalty for GM. I once heard that the average game is considered 40 moves. If all of the games go for 40 turns, this means the games last 10 hours, making it 10 minutes for the GM. Whether the game draws or someone wins, the GM just cut his time down by 15 seconds per turn.
As you can see, with this simple hypothetical, this encourages GM to knock out as many of the kids as possible. The weaker kids go first, either by a quick defeat or GM doesn't want to fight and offers a draw. Then he gets some more time to deal with the more challenging players, but since he rushed the games, he might find himself to be up a certain creek without a paddle. This is what leads to his losess.
I think this situation says that simul games shouldn't be rated. Everytime GM draws against one of the kids, he loses hundreds of points. GM would never do simuls, then, since the rating loss wouldn't be worth the money. Of course, GM could just be paid for their 10 hours of work, which would cost a lot more money and therefore no one will fund the simuls. Who wants to do 10 hours straight chess, either?
Even more simply, you can't rate games with a time handicap.
even a high rated player can have off days in there playing techniques so i would say yes its possiblefor a 1300 player to beat a 2700 player
One of Kasparov's great accomplishments was playing clock simuls against entire Olympiad teams and having plus scores.
Suggesting that such events should be rated is absurd though. The psychology and atmosphere of a simul is completely different from that of a serious tournament or match event.
That's a simple statement but doesn't explain why.
In order for a rating to have meaning, the playing conditions must be equal, Clavier.
Even when the playing conditions are equal other conditions must be met, such as time controls and so on. The Melody Amber events were equal but the blindfold tournament was unrated. The rapid chess was unrated for many years also.
Why is pretty obvious.
I once heard of a story of some guys that gave a GM free drinks just before a tournament, the GM still won. It looks that alchohol doesn't not interfer that much.
there is a huge difference in 2700 and say, 2450. Sure the 2450 rated player eats sleeps and breathes chess (in general), but not like a 2700 player. 27 usually means top 30ish in the world.
47, currently. 51 a month or so ago. http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men
If you're +2700, you have a good shot at beating anyone in the world not named Carlsen. That includes the current world champion. Carlsen is currently making everyone U2800 look like a fish. It's incredible to watch!
Everyone is human :) Even Kasparov sometimes blunders - http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=kZqcT66Fkzw - and if you can capitalise on that mistake then sure, you might win ;)
I managed to beat Swedish GM Nils Grandelius in a game of 10 minutes blitz back when he was eleven years old and "only" had a 2000-something rating, while I played on the level of someone rated ~1600 (I didn't play many games though so I had a much lower actual rating than that). But we played in the same club and were friends so he tried to toy with me a bit and ended up underestimating me. In a real game back then I wouldn't manage to beat him, not a chance. Now when he's 2500-something the thought of me beating him is just laughable, and I dominate a 1300.
People are obviously thinking here, well what if. There is A chance, however that does not make it probable or even possible to attain. This isn't something like rolling dice, the 2700 has vastly superior chess knowledge that the 1300 just isn't developed enough to handle. Sure, the 2700 COULD blunder, but the likelihood of such is so slim to none that I wouldn't count on it happening in several thousand games. Probability is not cumulitive either, if the chances are 1 in 1 million, that does not mean that you are guaranteed to succeed if you attempt it 1 million times. The probablitity will reset every time, and that 1 in 1 million may not even occur in the time in the course of human history. Yes, that small of a chance.
Agreed, CSF. Some people seem to think that chess is a game of chance. Luck plays a very small role in chess, and certainly does not enter into the calculation of whether a 1300 could beat a 2700 in tournament conditions.
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
by DrCheckevertim a few minutes ago
Was there any chance after move 19?
by jonnin 6 minutes ago
Bug in the Live Chess area
by ThrillerFan 10 minutes ago
What's On Your Bookshelf?
by MAIDEN_LOVE 16 minutes ago
Are you allowed to...
by Eseles 21 minutes ago
New exciting chess clock coming
by Eseles 26 minutes ago
by NateTimms 30 minutes ago
Is there a name for this opening?
by IMpatzer 41 minutes ago
how to play like mikhail tal
by akashphilipmathew 53 minutes ago
Help with this puzzle
by tacticalchessplayer 78 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!