I wasn't worried about the ratings. They seem to come and go very quickly. I Just wondered if players are just better now, or there's inflation, or maybe my brain doing brain things as well as they used to.
I think players are better now, but not that much. If you were solid B class then, you should be at least C class now.
I did not find or sync up with anything on my old rating, so I guess thats why I started pretty low on chess.com. And I think that's OK; I'd rather work my way up to a good rating instead of sinking down to it.
I did not find or sync up with anything on my old rating, so I guess thats why I started pretty low on chess.com. And I think that's OK; I'd rather work my way up to a good rating instead of sinking down to it.
I misunderstood. I thought you said you'd started up in-person play again and had an 1100 Over-The-Board (OTB) rating.
On-line feels different than OTB and OTB today is different that it was in 1985 (much quicker time controls, more rounds per day). I slowly slid from my 1990 peak over 2100 to the mid 1900s before playing in the US Open a few years back at the one game per day schedule and jumping back up over 2000 (and then starting another slide at today's much quicker time controls). It's not that players are significantly better now (though every generation tends to play better than the previous one due to gains in the general body of chess knowledge) but rather that the aging process affects a person's stamina, making it more difficult to maintain concentration (though a longer time control with one game per day can make it much easier to maintain a higher level of play).
I concur with the stamina comment! This is the main reason I haven't played OTB in a long time. I just lack the stamina.
I played in the 1970's and after that not for 40 years. Recently restarted and contacted USCF. They found my last published rating and I restarted with that. (They didnt find the earlier ratings but it was enough.)
If they could find my rating, they can find yours! - Bill
My ASCF Rating was 637 and then in just 3 tournaments I got to 982.
I had one tournament-ISH and dont remember the particulars from back then, but somehow I achieved 1775 ish. Im just wondering if the lower rating is just ratings inflation, or a diff organization giving the ratings, or if my brain is drying up.
probably because you were away from chess, and the average knowledge of chess has gone up, and 1775s back then have the knowledge of an average 1100 now, so probably just inflation or average knowledge going up
... the average knowledge of chess has gone up, and 1775s back then have the knowledge of an average 1100 now [...]
I completely disagree with that statement.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s there was rating inflation. I missed those years and came back rusty able to hold my 17xx rating. Once I got rid of the rust I shot up to about 2000. By the early 1990s I was 21xx. Since then I've slowly declined along with my stamina but only dropped about 200 points. So that indicates a 1775 in the 1970s might (if all the rust is removed) be about 1800 now.
So I’m clear, if my tournaments were before 1994 (or so), my provisional rating from the 70’s wouldn’t show up?
In the late 1970s and early 1980s there was rating inflation. I missed those years and came back rusty able to hold my 17xx rating. Once I got rid of the rust I shot up to about 2000. By the early 1990s I was 21xx. Since then I've slowly declined along with my stamina but only dropped about 200 points. So that indicates a 1775 in the 1970s might (if all the rust is removed) be about 1800 now.
I stopped playing nearly totally around 1978. My friends who kept on told me in the early to mid 80's USCF had adjusted ratings upward by almost 1 class. I dont know if it is true or if it was just their guess about ratings inflation- but consistent with your experience.
Since returning, it seems to me that players (who are mostly young) here are much better than we were at tactics at a comparable rating and more resourceful. But worse at strategic decisions and endings. (Of course it can also be I'm comparing to myself who has changed.) I am definitely much worse at blitz chess due to age - a different discussion.
- Bill
I did not find or sync up with anything on my old rating, so I guess thats why I started pretty low on chess.com. And I think that's OK; I'd rather work my way up to a good rating instead of sinking down to it.
I misunderstood. I thought you said you'd started up in-person play again and had an 1100 Over-The-Board (OTB) rating.
On-line feels different than OTB and OTB today is different that it was in 1985 (much quicker time controls, more rounds per day). I slowly slid from my 1990 peak over 2100 to the mid 1900s before playing in the US Open a few years back at the one game per day schedule and jumping back up over 2000 (and then starting another slide at today's much quicker time controls). It's not that players are significantly better now (though every generation tends to play better than the previous one due to gains in the general body of chess knowledge) but rather that the aging process affects a person's stamina, making it more difficult to maintain concentration (though a longer time control with one game per day can make it much easier to maintain a higher level of play).
I thought that was the inference, too. That the OP meant he was having trouble getting above a certain rating level - not that chess.com started him at 1100.
If there is inflation it is not so much that a 1775 established in 1986 would have a hard time reaching 1100 online -- unless you are losing strength through age.
I am 64. My peak USCF rating was 1799 after a good showing in the US Open in Phoenix 2005. Then I stopped playing for more than 10 years when I started started playing online. It didn't take long to get back to around the same level in blitz on chess.com ...
I am in a bit of a slump right now, but I have fortunately not fallen down to the 1100 level.