Since ratings depend on who you play and beat, they will go higher and higher forever. In some other thread, I created a copyrighted rating system to take this into account for the next 100 years, but I can't remember the name of the thread. Essentially, tomorrow's 1200 will be as good as today's 2100, yet tomorrow's 2800 will only be considered borderline FM/IM-ish since the 3300's will be where the top candidates live (engines will be at 3900). It'll be hard to keep up with inflation.
The Limit of Humanity
Sort:
In the long run, humankind will virtualize or become extinct.
In the former case, chess would become rather interesting, with the possibility of true centaurs and cerberi playing each other, possibly with outrageously long (or short) time controls.
The internet and the ready availability of information about, and training for, all fields of human endeavour is probably making mankind as a whole more skillful and knowledgeable if not inherently cleverer. The concern is not that we are not living better lives or exploring chess in more and more depth - which I think is true in both cases - but that we are ruining the biosphere in the process. So humanity doesn't have limits but the planet does.
I agree hands down with everyone. When this was a blog, the only comment was written by me, asking people to comment.
Now I will pose another question. Unless my information is outdated, GM Ray Robson was the youngest person to become a grandmaster.
How old do you think the youngest GM will be in the future?
sshenker wrote:
Unless my information is outdated, GM Ray Robson was the youngest person to become a grandmaster.
Ray Robson? Not even close...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_grandmasters
Because of the way that the rating sytem is set up, I doubt that any player will go beyond 3000. This is because if you keep beating everybody then there will be a huge rating differential in every game you play, which will limit the amount of points gained by a win.
In FIDE, ratings are calculated using the Elo method. This basically is a system that says that when you play another player the rating adjustment will be your K number times ( the result of the game, 1, .5, or 0, - the probability of you winning). The K number is 25 for the first 30 games, 15 after 30 games have been played and you're under 2400, and 10 after you hit 2400 and have played over 30 games. FIDE impliments the 400 point rule, which states that in the calculation of probability of winning, if there's a rating difference of more than 400, it's treated as a 400 point difference, which has a winning probablity of .92 for the stronger player. This would mean that once somebody reaches 2900 and plays Grandmasters (players who either are or were at 2500 or up), the most that the 2900 player would get out of it would be .8 rating points.
So, in order for inflation of the ratings to occur by this system, there would have to be multiple players at 3000 at the same time who would continually play each other and the perpetual loser would have to be replaced once the ratings differential becomes too large.
Well, if someone really is good enough to beat players so consistently to reach 3000, then they will win and win till they get there. There are 2800 players today -- only 200 points less than 3000. So if a 3000 level player wanted to get his rating up that high, he should eventually get there if he constantly wins. If he's not able to do so, then that's a good indication that he is not really of 3000 strength. Of course, getting to 3000 even after always winning would still take awhile, but it should definitely happen granted there is the skill.
The reason I don't think this will happen is that it's pretty hard to the best the top players we have now like Carlsen and Anand.
Edit: jp_23, I didn't realize you may have been referring to ratings inflating (even if the skill remains constant) as alluded to from dannyhume. Sorry about that!
Because of the 400 point rule, there's another way to get to 3000. Once a player's rating gets high enough he or she will always get .8 points, no matter who he or she plays. This means that someone can get to 3000 by being a 2500, entering into tournaments with lower ranked players, and beating the easy competition 625 times in a row. Because of rating divisions in most tournaments, this method is not likely to be utilized, but is technically possible.
jp_23 wrote:
Because of the 400 point rule, there's another way to get to 3000. Once a player's rating gets high enough he or she will always get .8 points, no matter who he or she plays. This means that someone can get to 3000 by being a 2500, entering into tournaments with lower ranked players, and beating the easy competition 625 times in a row. Because of rating divisions in most tournaments, this method is not likely to be utilized, but is technically possible.
Thank you! Now I can try to become the highest-rated non-titled player in chess history...I have something realistic to short for.
Quite hilarious.
For shame, now I will have to be the second highest non-titled player. *Sigh*
This was originally posted on by blog. However, I wanted to hear the opinions of others.
Many philosophers often wonder which direction humanity will go. Will we progress, regress, or remain stationary?
This question can be broken up into subsections: different aspects of life. I would like to focus on chess.
We are, as of yet, steadily climbing in rating. Currently, the highest FIDE rating, 2823, belongs to GM Magnus Carlsen. (http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml)
How far can we go? Will we even continue to go?
I believe humanity continues to move forward in its chess talent. Young players such as Ray Robson and Hou Yifan convince me that we, as of yet, have not reached a plateau.
What is your opinion?