At any level, when you start inexorably moving down, and not before! In any case, rating (or grade) is not quite the same thing as playing strength or success as the system is not closed and is subject, certainly in the FIDE list, to inflation. A 2650 FIDE rating would have put a player in the top 10 or so 20 years ago but would only be in the top 100 or so now. It's complicated!
how does a chess player know when he hits his peak
Sort:
Anarchos61 wrote:
At any level, when you start inexorably moving down, and not before! In any case, rating (or grade) is not quite the same thing as playing strength or success as the system is not closed and is subject, certainly in the FIDE list, to inflation. A 2650 FIDE rating would have put a player in the top 10 or so 20 years ago but would only be in the top 100 or so now. It's complicated!
i dont understand.... i thought elo = player's strength
Magnus Carlsen has the highest elo, he is the strongest player in the world?
right?
Jun 21, 2014
0
#4
You must realise that for example Kasparov had harder time getting his peak due to others having not that great ratings, but nowadays there are a lot chess players with a rating over 2700 and some with a rating over 2750
TheMushroomDealer wrote:
You must realise that for example Kasparov had harder time getting his peak due to others having not that great ratings, but nowadays there are a lot chess players with a rating over 2700 and some with a rating over 2750
that is just evident of the sport, like every other sport evolving as generations past....
as more information, more knowledge, computers get stronger and other tools
players have more access to learn and obtain the vast amounts of chess knowledge out there that was limited back then, thus allowing the player to be stronger....
capablanca is amazing, but he wouldn't even be in the top 100 if he played today, thats a sad truth i know....
but the sport evolves, players get stronger
superking500 wrote:
TheMushroomDealer wrote:
You must realise that for example Kasparov had harder time getting his peak due to others having not that great ratings, but nowadays there are a lot chess players with a rating over 2700 and some with a rating over 2750
that is just evident of the sport, like every other sport evolving as generations past....
as more information, more knowledge, computers get stronger and other tools
players have more access to learn and obtain the vast amounts of chess knowledge out there that was limited back then, thus allowing the player to be stronger....
capablanca is amazing, but he wouldn't even be in the top 100 if he played today, thats a sad truth i know....
but the sport evolves, players get stronger
If Capa was around he would benefit, if that's the word, from all of that stuff too and would likely be a leading player now as then. The same goes for the other past masters.
Elo is really a measure of success relative to others in the system and not an absolute measure of strength or success. What this means is a 2600 player in 2014 has been more successful in the rating period than his colleague rated 2500, during the same rating period. If both of these players are at their peak then the ratings give a good indication of their strength with respect to each other and others on the system. 10 years ago, the difference in the players' respective ratings would still give a good indication of respective success but not for absolute strength. This is for all sorts of complicated mathematical reasons but the main thing is that people move in to the system and move out of it as they start playing in Elo rated tournaments and then, in due course, retire or die. Every new player brings with him or her an allotment of rating points and takes those away when they leave the system. In the context of the Elo system this, and other issues, cause ratings to rise over time. In 100 years time, all else being equal, there'll be a GM rated perhaps 4000- maybe more. That fact would not by itself tell us whether he or she is stronger or weaker tah Fischer or Carlsen or whomever.
An interesting project, available on-line- is Chessmetrics, which tries to adjust Elo ratings accross decades to give a stronger indication of relative strength. It's worth checking out and also looking at articles on method that discuss the technical difficulties of coming up with an accurate system.
superking500 wrote:
TheMushroomDealer wrote:
You must realise that for example Kasparov had harder time getting his peak due to others having not that great ratings, but nowadays there are a lot chess players with a rating over 2700 and some with a rating over 2750
that is just evident of the sport, like every other sport evolving as generations past....
as more information, more knowledge, computers get stronger and other tools
players have more access to learn and obtain the vast amounts of chess knowledge out there that was limited back then, thus allowing the player to be stronger....
capablanca is amazing, but he wouldn't even be in the top 100 if he played today, thats a sad truth i know....
but the sport evolves, players get stronger
as do computers
(I wonder how a mountaineer knows when he has hit his peak ? )
superking500 wrote:
TheMushroomDealer wrote:
You must realise that for example Kasparov had harder time getting his peak due to others having not that great ratings, but nowadays there are a lot chess players with a rating over 2700 and some with a rating over 2750
that is just evident of the sport, like every other sport evolving as generations past....
as more information, more knowledge, computers get stronger and other tools
players have more access to learn and obtain the vast amounts of chess knowledge out there that was limited back then, thus allowing the player to be stronger....
capablanca is amazing, but he wouldn't even be in the top 100 if he played today, thats a sad truth i know....
but the sport evolves, players get stronger
You put Capa in todays world, with todays technology, he would benefit just like any other player.
Superking, I'm proud of you. Really. We should all give him a pat on the back for not making a thread about what's his name. You're finally getting over your obsession with what's his name & moving on to other topics. This is a decent one, I actually like it. Its better than what's his name threads repeatedly like there's a secret man crush or something. Way to go. Did you join a 12 step program or something in order to cut back? Of so, good job.
His highest rating corresponds to the time when he gets bored with the game.
Aug 8, 2014
0
#13
superking500 wrote:
that is just evident of the sport, like every other sport evolving as generations past....
as more information, more knowledge, computers get stronger and other tools
players have more access to learn and obtain the vast amounts of chess knowledge out there that was limited back then, thus allowing the player to be stronger....
capablanca is amazing, but he wouldn't even be in the top 100 if he played today, thats a sad truth i know....
but the sport evolves, players get stronger
It's also true that the top ratings will inflate as more and more people get FIDE ratings.
This is elementary statistics. Ratings form (roughly speaking) a gaussian distribution. As the sample-set gets larger and larger, the outliers (extreme highest and lowest scores) will slide further and further apart. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a gaussian distribution, would it?
When you are the greatest chess player of all time!
Free at last, you're saying chess ability gives you pen cred? Or slammer cred, or big house cred, or ...... you get the idea. Chess players get treated differently in prison?
Or you get f***ed.
Um........He has two accounts! Don't call ad hominem on me.
for example
say someone is rated 2650....when does a chessplayer realize that this 2650 could be the best rating he will get, and that he will never hit 2700...