choi1029 wrote:
Interesting, how do you post empty comment?
Why a 1200 fide will be the level of magnus carlsen at some point
Sort:
Jul 3, 2021
0
#23
Cruxter wrote:
choi1029 wrote:
Interesting, how do you post empty comment?
Probably a blank filler image.
AunTheKnight wrote:
Cruxter wrote:
choi1029 wrote:
Interesting, how do you post empty comment?
Probably a blank filler image.
No, there is nothing you cannot highlight anything.
Jul 3, 2021
0
#25
Your wording was confusing, but you're saying that if Magnus Carlson traveled 200 years into the future (and played exactly as well as he does today), his rating would be 1200.
FIDE makes adjustments to prevent rating deflation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_inflation_and_deflation But the most common concern is actually that FIDE has caused rating inflation. Between 1992 and 1994 the number of players who had ever reached 2700 went from 8 to 15.
Now that engines are very powerful, we should hopefully be able to keep the ratings more consistent historically by benchmarking against the engine.
AunTheKnight escribió:
llama47 wrote:
krazeechess wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
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
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.
How would a strong player be lower rated? Could you explain, llama?
He didn't say a strong player can be lower rated. He said a strong player could be rated 1,000. 1,000 can be a lot of money or not enough for a tip, depending on the currency.
pauldrapier wrote:
FIDE makes adjustments to prevent rating deflation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_inflation_and_deflation But the most common concern is actually that FIDE has caused rating inflation. Between 1992 and 1994 the number of players who had ever reached 2700 went from 8 to 15.
Precisely the point. On-line inflation at the upper end has taken on a life of it’s own with 4000 not so far away- if trends continue. 3000+ for the elite dozen OTB players.
ok this is getting confusing so basically a the general skill of someone who is 1200 can't increase drastically because FIDE adds rating deflation every few years or something right? I don't get why 100 being the lowest rating was brought up though
Jul 3, 2021
0
#29
Cruxter wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
Cruxter wrote:
choi1029 wrote:
Interesting, how do you post empty comment?
Probably a blank filler image.
No, there is nothing you cannot highlight anything.
Oh, right! HOW STRANGE!
FIDE does not “add rating deflation”. (No such thing). ELO is a mathematical algorithm designed for zero sum games.
100 was chosen as the bottom line.
Instead of 1
The system prevents negative ratings- a limit on the lower end. 100 was arbitrarily selected- a good choice. Ratings in double or single digits (if the bottom limit were 1) are not aesthetic.
As explained- at the upper end there is no limit set in place. The top rated player could continue to gain points if he never loses. No end in sight, until a 1000 point rating difference occurs. ELO stops awarding any points (or fractions thereof) at this point.
A rating of 100 is not relative to other players so rated ! Once 100 is reached- a mercy rule takes place 😀. Just no telling how well a player might fair vs others sharing the same boat.
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
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.
How would a strong player be lower rated? Could you explain, llama?