I think yes!!
Are rated players today better than players with the same rating 20 years ago?

I quit in 1991 with a rating of 1900 and a peak of 2000. I've seen players who were 2200+ back then down around 1800 now. When I came back I was probably about 1400-1500 strength.
A 1900 player today is probably about 300-500 points stronger than a 1900 player from my era.
I am not sure why this happened, but it is a broad phenomenon, if not quite to the suggested extent. I estimate a 200 point deflation among stronger ratings.

Kenneth Regan, an International Master and professional statistician has addressed this issue. He has come to the conclusion that chess ratings have been stable indicators of playing strength since their inception in the early 1970s.
If anything, he has found there has been a very slight rating deflation over time.
Here's a link to an article by Dennis Monokroussus which discusses Regan's article, and gives a link to his academic paper.
http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2011/11/25/are-ratings-inflated-some-evidence-for-a-negative-answer.html

StupidGM, it addresses objective strength. Read the Regan article.
Or, re-read Monkroussos' article where he says it's an objective test.


It's just like an aution, the more resources the bidders have, the more they spend to purchase the same thing against a competing pool. In 1995, you could "purchase" a 1800 rating with the skill you got from just some books from the store, maybe Chessmaster, and playing with real people and analyzing your own games or with a friend, and never really "knowing" where you went wrong. Now, in order to get the same rating, you'd have to take part in the arms race with other 1800s with Databases, Computers, Truth Engines, Online Coaching, Thousands of Youtube videos, instant access to every opening and novelty variation up to today at the Norway tournament, and as many games as you can play online and against computers. Thus, a 1800 today would probably go 8-2 against an 1800 from 1995. It's easier to get "better" than it was then, but it's harder to seperate from the pack.
We know ratings are a product of having a certain standing in your pool of players. But, as technology and resources have increased dramatically, I think it has "bid up" the skill level needed to be the same level/rating 20 years ago.
In 1997, people pretty much had a thick book of MCO for openings, and whatever books they were lucky enough to have time to drive to the store and get. To play and train, they had to get out and play dedicated games with people when time and schedules allowed. If they wanted to train at home, they could use a Novag Electronic chess board, which took forever, and could get you through a game a day perhaps. When they analyzed their games, they had to take their own word for the mistakes they made, never really knowing the real answer. They could get to 1500, or 1800, or whatever, with only what skill they could muster from this.
Now say a 1500 today has access within seconds to, literally, thousands of free engines to play against, instantly, with immediate feedback to practice any opening, idea, or technique with hundreds of times. Within minutes they have access to thousands of chess books for free through download (Sorry, but it's true). They have websites where they can train tactics with tens of thousands of exercises, day in and day out, effortlessly. They can play and analyze dozens of games a day for training and pattern recognition. When analyzing their games, they have the help of a 3400 Truth Engine to determine what mistakes they made, exactly how big of a mistake it was, and when, along with the proper continuation, all of this adding up to profoundly increased knowledge and faster access to information. They have 7 million games they can find the best line in any opening with statistics, on a tablet at a tournament. Everyone else has this too.
Would a 1400 (or 1600, or 1800, or 2000) transported from 1997 to today, still have their same rating, or would they be obliterated by players with an entire universe of resources at their fingertips?