Elo Inflation Armageddon

It's gotten to a ridiculous point now. every year, the rating of a 1000 is worth considerably less than the next years. I blame the internet, every moron can just go and watch videos explaining all the good openings and gambits etc. There has to be some other system that isn't afflicted by this. 

That's just called people improving, and we don't want to stop that. We want more of it. If you want your rating to match up and be worth at least the same as it was last year, you should consider improving yourself. it will keep your elo where you want it.

I know, but i just think t he lower elo ratings aren't low enough to stop matching with much better players. I think they should allow it to drop lower than 100.

For a sub-1000 rated player, watching videos "explaining all the good openings and gambits" is probably worthless. Those players lose games not because of openings, but because of silly blunders in the middle game.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/122533538876?username=warsoaps&move=14

Look at your last lost game. The opening went fine, then you hung a pawn, then another pawn, then the queen. No amount of videos about openings will fix that. Only you can fix it by paying attention to the game.

Does elo inflation actually exist?

It does, and it's accelerating.

And it's very evident if you look at some famous players.

For example, take Karpov: when was his highest rating? In 1975-1985 when he was world champion and won every tournament? No! It was bizarrely in 1994, when he was already 43 years old, and was on the brink of disappearing from the list of top players.

Or look at Kasparov. He dominated the world for many years in the 80s and 90s. But his highest Elo was in 2000, when he was already 37 years old, and very near the end off his career: in that year he will lose the title and retire soon after.

In general, no one was 2800+ rated before 1989, not even Fischer or Karpov. Only Kasparov in the next two decades. A whole lot of unremarkable players since 2010.

Maybe it could be a larger pool of chess talent that caused an increase in the 2800 pool. Also I was referring to inflation for online chess elo. Thanks for you answer!

pretty sure your elo doesnt go up +8 for every win you get, they werent that high in their prime cause there werent that many high level players to play with, all were in same sort of rating level and it is pretty much impossible to get higher if your opponents are not high enough level, that is why Magnus never hit 2900

And Kasparov hit 2800 in 1990

The opposite effect can be observed on chess.com: Rating DEFLATION. Prior to the 2017-18 chess boom, the global average rating on chess.com vacillated between 1150 and 1250, usually settling just a bit lower than 1200. This was to be expected since the starting rating was 1200 for all accounts and the matchmaking algorithm is programmed in the absence of special settings to provide games with a zero-sum ELO bid. Assuming you have a 50-50 win/loss rate, you will gain 0 elo over a large sample of games.

Since then, the choose-your-own starting rating system has dragged the global average elo down, making it more difficult to maintain a set rating at all levels. Whereas the global average was ~1200 in 17-18, the average in all time controls is now about 650. The evidence of this is visible in long-time members profiles. Most 7-10 year old accounts are significantly down from their all-time highs.

Ah yes it's so annoying how nowadays everyone has the privilege to learn anything they want for free we need to put an end to this

Also why are you complaining about elo inflation and 1000's being worse if ur 100 shouldn't you be learning how the pieces move

Wait until he found out books existed before Youtube.