Average chess player ability increasing?

Interesting question. You would think a player of any given level today would be better than say 20 years ago because the chess universe generally increases in knowledge. Because that is what you are competing against, it takes more to achieve the same rating at a later date. Then again, maybe there is no inflation in the sense people think, just increasing chess knowledge that results in a truly better players at a later date, even if they lack originality or did any of the groundbreaking work to achieve that knowledge. In that case, this would mean that the Fischer of 1972 is roughly as good as Nakamura today, but not quite to the level of Kasparov in the ‘90’s or Carlsen today.

Well, chess.com gives you a direct message as to what skill level you are when you first make your account right? I would say that most people, even if only about a 1000 will consider themselves "advanced." Because of this, I agree with blueemu, though I get what you are saying as well HomerSimpson.

Also, I am not quite sure about how the chess.com rating systems work, but if the points are required to go somewhere after a game ends, then more people making accounts adds more points into the system right? Especially if that person is overrated in the start.

This is a really interesting topic. With so many new players coming to the game, it is hard to say exactly what effect it will have. I was actually thinking the opposite of selkmanthor. I believe the beginning players will be lower rated, and will make easier wins for those who have been around longer. Then again, we have to account for people at your rating level spending more time studying and improving their game with the extra time.

 

I would guess that ultimately, there is not much difference between two years. However, I believe the more people that play, the easier it will be to eventually get to a higher rating. I can't quite figure out the math, but the reason players are rated 3000+ in blitz and bullet on here is because there is a larger pool.

 

I also think it varies depending on where exactly you are on the ladder. For example, a 2500 blitz player on here would probably suffer against a 2500 player OTB. However, a 1600 on chess.com would probably be about equally matched to most 1600s OTB.

I just Googled this a found this thread. My peak rating was 1058 (rapid) three years ago. I backslid a bit in rating and then took a break. I've been playing steadily and doing a lot of learning in the last year. I'm stuck back in mid 900s now. I know openings and endgames MUCH better than I did when I was 1058 and regularly get strong positions, but I don't see the same level of blundering I used to see in the mid game. Looking at some of my old games, it really seems like current 1000 players are a setup above the 1000 players from 3 years ago.  I feel likewould easily my the 2018 version of myself, but I'm rated lower. 

To answer the topic question directly...

Is average chess ability increasing?  No.

Is access to chess knowledge that exceeds people's own ability increasing?  Yes.

It has always been this way, though, with the caveat that engines are now teaching GMs, when GMs had to learn from other GMs before...and that is the only real "new" factor in chess, not a temporary burst of newbie players (either now or during the Fischer boom, or the Anand boom, etc.).  Just watch Pogchamps (only for a few minutes, and then go far away ...), those players have access to everything including GM level trainers, but they will continue to suck.

If you show a new player Scholar's Mate, they will use it themselves and learn to not fall into it.  Does this increase their actual chess ability?  Not really, they just have a tidbit of knowledge, and they will fall into every other opening trap in turn until they learn *those* tidbits.  At the end of their first 100 games, they have various tidbits of knowledge, but has their natural ability to play chess increased?

If you show somebody the optimal moves for playing against a bad gambit, like the Englund, then put a candidate master sitting across from them who plays it, they will still lose every single game.  Because they have some knowledge, but lack the ability to apply it all.

I looked at the ELO of the top 100 chess players of today and I believe the top 100 chess players of some year in the 1990s. It turns out that the top 100 players of today have an ELO about 9.5% higher than those in the 1990s.  If that was across the board, a 1,000 rating now would be equal to 1095 then.

You are assuming that the value of a rating point hasn't changed.

The average worker in the US makes nearly ten times as much money per hour as the average worker did sixty years ago. Unfortunately, the value of a dollar is only one-tenth of what it used to be.

I can say that I started playing online a few years ago (mostly on the other major chess site - I only play here once in a while) and worked my way up to about a 1950 rating for rapid. Then I stopped playing for about a year and a half. Six months ago I started up again and it's like night and day. My rating is down 300 points and I'm regularly getting demolished, tactically.

Players are super aggressive, tactically sharp, and they tend to be really comfortable in a pretty broad range of openings.

I've had to start studying the game seriously for the first time in my entire life just to be competitive. I've never done puzzles but now I have to because my tactical skills are nowhere near good enough.

The average player is a LOT better today than two years ago.

Easier access to tons of info at an early age is bound to help create someone even greater than Carlsen. It's time for such a player to appear.