Why a 1200 fide will be the level of magnus carlsen at some point

First of all, in order to improve your rating, you need to improve more than the other person. If two 1200s are playing each other, the person that improved the most will win. Even though both players improved, one of them lost. This keeps on happening. Maybe after 200 years, a 1200 rated person can play as good as an IM. Tell me if this logic is wrong because it feels wrong

improved all the time

Well, it might work. If a 1200 just studies for 10 years and then plays a 1200, obviously they could be playing at the strength of a GM. The strange thing is that they would improve without playing.

ok but like im talking about all the 1200s. the level of a 1200 player in the future might be the level of a 2000 player right now. im not talking about a singular person not playing and then being super underrated

Oooohhh. I have no clue.

In 200 years chess will be solved 

If hundreds of thousands of people are able to reach 2500 rating then I guess that could be possible. Still very far from happening though.

I see what you mean 🤔 Just look at really old Master games. It's like watching two modern FIDE 1800 level players.

OOOH! I GET IT NOW! Maybe strength will increase. It all depends on how hard people work. If everyone increased in strength, then probably. I see what you mean now. Why does it feel wrong to you?

It just seems unrealistic, and no one has mentioned it before. Now that a few people are agreeing with me, I am pretty sure it is true.

Ikr

Nah, I don't believe chess will ever be solved. Even though at engine level the game might be solved, at human level it won't. People make mistakes in chess and there isn't anything anyone can do about it.

uhh maybe

what makes you say maybe and not yes or no?

So you're getting at the fact that ratings are relative... well yeah. I hope most people know this.

What wont change is humans improve relatively slowly, and there will always be beginners. This means (as long as chess is popular) there will be a wide range of skill, so also a wide range of ratings. In the future (or on some website tomorrow) noobs might be rated 2400 or strong players might be rated 1000, but none of that matters.

I like to tell people to think of it as currency exchange. If you go to a country with an ounce of gold they might give you 100 units of their cash in exchange for it... meanwhile a different country might give you 10000. The value of the gold is constant, and the amount you're paid for it is relative.

Noone will play Chess anymore in 200 years, Chess has become more popular because of the Internet, 40 years ago you could play 2 evenings a week only at the local club, but on the other hand even the World champion is crushed today by any computer, so at some point the game will lose interest for most people.

gracias por la partida

“Tell me if this logic is wrong because it feels wrong“ - OP

Your logic is wrong…. as but a few factors are taken into consideration. When weighing in on the matter, best to be in possession of how ELO is formatted. Rating Inflation at the upper end will continue to increase with the influx of new players and existing ones playing longer. The phenomenon does not appear so readily at the lower end as ELO is a closed system there with 100 being the bottom. A future 1000 rated player may play better than a present 1000, but only slightly. (if new players continue to surpass those dropping out). 2700 rated players are seeing a rapid spike in rating as ELO is open ended at the higher end.

I don't think it will go that far