Ponz111 hit the nail on the head. Players now are objectively better due to a much better training environment. Imagine Fischer et al playing and learning against computers from age 6, instead of playing against himself in his room...
Kasparov says there IS ratings inflation...
Sort:
Jan 3, 2016
0
#23
klimski wrote:
Ponz111 hit the nail on the head. Players now are objectively better due to a much better training environment. Imagine Fischer et al playing and learning against computers from age 6, instead of playing against himself in his room...
You guys realize that super strong GMs didn't sit in their room all day with a computer right?
They had a professional trainer with them helping them learn from all the past greats while they toured around the continent playing in strong tournaments.
Your local 1600 player is the one who sits in his room with an engine all day.
Lets be a little more realistic. Of course the GMs had engines, but that's not what made them strong. From a young age they had access to immense amount of material organized by professional coaches, and strong competition which is much more important. Fischer was lacking these things too.
I also liked Ponz's comment about the population of humans doubling. I didn't realize this!
Rating system has been inflated terribly. Basement ratings don,t allow one person to lose points but the winner can gain 32 or more with bonus points in one game. they are needed to stop sandbagges from losing points on purpos to enter big money tournaments in lower rating classes so there is not much that can be done. Bonus points also go to one player and no one loses rating points and all these points get shared later on by other people. Lots of other things have inflated ratings for everyone. Between the 1970,s and now there is at least a 300 point difference between players that were equal strength to todays players. No players have not gotten better they are just higher rated due to flaws in the rating system. Also players that reach A certain level in their rating only win or lose half as many points as many of the people they play. All these things have created much higher rating at United States Chess Federation rated tournaments . As far as international fide rated tournaments it about the same but the top players play mostly each other. The top players don,t care about ratings anyway but they did get A huge head start on A higher rating by beating 1600 players when they were young who would have been rated around 1300 30 or 40 years ago. People are not better trained or smarter but the rating system can make it look that way,Besides letting people keep getting A higher rating makes them want to play more because they think they are getting better. Many are getting better but don,t pay much attention to ratings wether its internet or live in person chess. You learn and remeber A lot more from books but there is much easier access to knowledge with computers.
One funny thing is that in the first unofficial rating list Elo made, in 1967, he mentioned how one could get a top rating by beating "weakies":
"Amusing that Fischer ties first with Spassky in this U.S.-compiled table although his results against leading Russians have been patchy. His grading could of course be enhanced by his sweeping successes against not-quite-top opposition"
http://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/Elo196706e.html
Jan 3, 2016
0
#26
NDsteve wrote:
Rating system has been inflated terribly. Basement ratings don,t allow one person to lose points but the winner can gain 32 or more with bonus points in one game. they are needed to stop sandbagges from losing points on purpos to enter big money tournaments in lower rating classes so there is not much that can be done. Bonus points also go to one player and no one loses rating points and all these points get shared later on by other people. Lots of other things have inflated ratings for everyone. Between the 1970,s and now there is at least a 300 point difference between players that were equal strength to todays players. No players have not gotten better they are just higher rated due to flaws in the rating system. Also players that reach A certain level in their rating only win or lose half as many points as many of the people they play. All these things have created much higher rating at United States Chess Federation rated tournaments . As far as international fide rated tournaments it about the same but the top players play mostly each other. The top players don,t care about ratings anyway but they did get A huge head start on A higher rating by beating 1600 players when they were young who would have been rated around 1300 30 or 40 years ago. People are not better trained or smarter but the rating system can make it look that way,Besides letting people keep getting A higher rating makes them want to play more because they think they are getting better. Many are getting better but don,t pay much attention to ratings wether its internet or live in person chess. You learn and remeber A lot more from books but there is much easier access to knowledge with computers.
At the lower end, supposedly ratings are actually deflated compared to the same strength of players many years ago.
One reason for this in USCF is you get a bus full of kids rated U1000 who have been playing and gaining experience outside of the USCF for years, then they play a few years in the USCF as teens and take away a lot of adult's points, then some time around highschool they quit chess forever. So year after year these kids take rating points out of the system.
Also, it's naive to say top players don't know more today than they did 40 years ago. It's simply not true.
"Between the 1970,s and now there is at least a 300 point difference between players that were equal strength to todays players"
That sounds a bit much, Carlsen as very clear #1 is below 2850. That should mean that he was as strong as players rated just over 2500 in the 1970s. Even on the first rating list of the 1970s you didn't get higher than #70 as 2500 rated.
The 60-year-old Botvinnik was 2630 on the first official rating list in 1971.
Jan 3, 2016
0
#29
Top players today get out of opening lines that are common as fast as they can because they want to play the person not something they memorized just like the top players did 100 years ago. Let me put it this way then, Give Morphy,Botvinnik,Tarrasch ,Lasker and all the great players in their prime about 6 months and you would see A huge change in the top 50 players in the world. The most ridiculous I have heard is that anyone with A rating over 2500 is now givin A grandmaster title . In the 1950,s there were only 20 grandmasters in the world. They may know more today but they can,t play the middle and endgames any better. The top players know this and thats why they get out of book as fast as they can. I really doubt the human mind has improved that much but people do live longer,excercise and eat better. That helps todays players A lot plus its much easier to travel and they make enough money to become professional chess players. Those things did not increase their IQ by 50 points. :))
Jan 3, 2016
0
#31
@NDSteve If you actually look at top grandmaster games there's no way you can say that they get out of common lines as fast as possible. So, that argument is clearly false. The rest of your post has some valid points, although it is a bit disrespectful to all those genuine GM's.
As for 110011etc's comment that the top players of today don't sit in rooms with computers: they do (admittedly perhaps a bit less once they are touring GM's - but a tiny laptop (even a smartphone) can run an engine that plays/analyses 3000+). They also receive great coaching. And they benefit of chess knowlegde which is more complete now than ever in the past. You seem to be missing the point of both my statement and that of Ponz before me:
Players now are better that those of the past. That is not to say more talented, or more natural ability or smarter. It's a simple reality: in the past, beginning and growing talents had weaker opposition, material (theory/knowledge) and training than nowadays. And, as a human one can generally only be better than the opposition you face.
A few examples of current advantages: chess engines, all chess books/mags available online (e-books e.g.) strong opponents available 24/7 online. Coaching over the net etc etc. In other words: more is made of innate talent now than in the past. So where it used to be a major and rare acchievement to attain a 2500 rating, nowadays that's just the first stepping stone to the top.
And it filters down. I've been playing a year and have a 1200 rating. Not great, but in the past, knowing only two people who play chess at all, I would have been hard pressed to acchieve even this in a year. I have played 50 odd games here, and hundreds against a mobile app that is much stronger than me.
They only stay in common lines when they want to draw. Anyway this arguement has been going on ever since I was 11 years back in the early 1970,s and no one has been able to convince someone that their views are correct. Its just A matter of opinion so we will just wait for 80 years and watch them all play each other in that big chess tournament in the sky. Thanks for your thoughts but I have A weakness for admiring the greatest and most talalented minds that have ever graced the chess board. 
ponz111 +1