|Aug-17-10|| ||wordfunph: he turns 63 today, he was granted the GM title by FIDE in 2005 at age 58..|
currently holds 2428 rating..
his scalps include GMs Nei, Savon, Sveshnikov, Glek, Antoshin, Uhlmann, Vyzmanavin, Kengis, Kholmov, Taimanov, and Bagirov.
|Sep-04-14|| ||galdur: Geller, Efim P - Vorotnikov, Vladislav V
URS-chT Moscow, 1966
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.d4 cxd4 6.cxd4 Nc6 7.Nc3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 d6 9.Bf4 Qc7 10.Bb5 Bd7 11.O-O dxe5 12.Nxe5 Bd6 13.Re1 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Bc5 15.Bxd7+ Qxd7 16.Qg4 Qa4 17.Rad1 O-O 18.h3 Rfd8 19.Bg5 Rxd1 20.Qxa4 Rxe1+ 21.Kh2 Bxf2 22.Qd7 Rxe5 23.Qxb7 Rf8 24.Bf4 Re1 25.Qf3 Bg1+ 26.Kg3 e5 27.Bd2 e4 28.Qh5 Ra1 29.Qg4 e3 0-1
|Feb-15-18|| ||Phony Benoni: To have both the first and last names begin and end with the same letter must be unusual. But when that letter is "V"...|
|May-17-18|| ||diagonal: <wordfunph> Elo up-date for Grandmaster V. Vorotnikov:|
This guy achieved his peak rating in classical chess at the age of 68 years (December 2015 / January 2016 / February 2016 FIDE list) at a nominal rating of 2484 Elo points.
<IM 1982, GM 2005 at age of 58, peak Elo rating in 2015/16 at age of 68> Vorotnikov is a pretty illustrative example for the title and rating inflation..
|May-17-18|| ||alexmagnus: Neither nor.|
|May-17-18|| ||alexmagnus: His peak rating was actually 2510 in July 1996.|
|May-17-18|| ||alexmagnus: But you in your inflation fever didn't even bother to look up pre-2000 ratings, did you?|
|May-17-18|| ||alexmagnus: And before you say he was "too old" even in 1996 - note how he gained 45 points in one list in 1995. He may have been old but such gains clearly indicate a peak.|
|May-17-18|| ||diagonal: What an inflation of postings.. don't take my opinion on title and rating inflation personal.|
Concerning Vorotnikov, you are right, he indeed had an Elo of 2510 in 1996, meaning his Elo of 2484 as a senior in 2016 is only his best Elo within / since the 2000s.
The usual cg. header of Vorotnikov’s "highest rating achieved in database" indicates 2484 as his peak, but is wrong. Through my most grievous fault, I did not double-check it at Olimpbase, usually a reliable source.
In principle, I believe that there is a title inflation, about 100 grandmaster titles had been awarded between 1950 and 1969, today we have more than 1'500 living GMs; and I believe that Elo rating inflation happened.
An Elo of 2650 was mostly good enough for a Top Five rank, easily for a Top Ten rank in the Fide Elo lists, this was a constant during all the (half) years between 1970/1, its introduction, and around late 1980s. Today this nominal rating of 2650 Elo is not even enough for the Top Hundred.
The number of people with ratings over 2700 has increased. Around 1970 to the late 1980s there were only one or two active players with a rating this high (Fischer, followed by Karpov, and then Kasparov). Today, there are more than 40 players with a rating of Elo 2700plus.
Thus, in historical comparisons, ranking matters, not nominal rating, referring to grandmaster level.
|May-17-18|| ||alexmagnus: <In principle, I believe that there is a title inflation, about 100 grandmaster titles had been awarded between 1950 and 1969, today we have more than 1'500 living GMs>|
Of those 1500ish GMs only about a half are active and over 2500. The rest just rest on their past laurels (just as Vorotnikov is - I don't know when he scored his GM norms but I would bet a lot that they were spaced years apart).
Also, of course the number of living GMs increses, simply because most GMs are too young to die yet, and new GMs get added. Do you know that the number of <new> GMs peaked in 2007?
The number of players increased too, so of course the number of players with Elo of 2600 or 2700 increased. To prove that the number of top players increse, just look at the number of the <nations> on top.
It's not rating inflation, it's ranking deflation.
|May-17-18|| ||alexmagnus: <simply because most GMs are too young to die yet>|
To clarify on this: just number <ten> among the oldest living GMs was born in 1934.
The number of living Candidates increases too (but nobody in his right mind would talk of Candidates inflation, haha), as does the number of living players who ever had 2700, for the same reasons.
But again, the number of <new> 2700s within a year peaked in 2008 (at 13, the only year this number was in double figures).
The number of <current> 2700ers peaked in 2012.
|May-18-18|| ||alexmagnus: Number of first time 2700ers by year in the 21st century. (-1) means one historical 2700 died that year|
2008 13 (-1)
2014 5 (-1)
|May-18-18|| ||diagonal: And now compare with the Number of <new 2700ers by year> throughout the 1970s and 1980s:|
1970 1 (Fischer)
unofficial list, presented at Siegen Oympiad
1974 1 (Karpov)
1980 1 (Tal for one period)
1984 1 (Kasparov)
As mentioned, within the first two decades since Elo had been introduced, the number of players with a rating of 2700+ was constant / stable: there were <one or two players around 2700 or higher>.
Namely Fischer, then Karpov, Tal briefly behind Karpov as number one, and from the mid-80s on Kasparov as number one with Karpov as number two. Korchnoi at 2695 Elo peak and Spassky at 2690 Elo peak came close.
During Karpov's time at the top of the food chain, as the number one ranked player of the world, he three times had a rating of less than 2700 Elo (meaning in 1976, in 1977, and in 1981 first half year, there was even no player above 2700 Elo).
Today we have approximately <forty to fifty players above 2700 Elo>. In your stats you can especially see an inflationary burst in the year 2008.
|May-18-18|| ||alexmagnus: <In your stats you can especially see an inflationary burst in the year 2008.>
It's not an inflationary burst, it's just an influx of good players (how can there be a subsiding burst anyway, in an inflation theory)? The "golden generation" around Carlsen (though Carlsen himself reached 2700 earlier).|
And I tell you the reason for no new 2700s before 1990s: lack of good young players. I refer to the 1970s and 1980s as suffering from a "dying generation syndrome" - where you had 49-year-old Korchnoi challenging for world championship, Kasparov battling the same Korchnoi and the even older Smyslov in the Candidates, Tal becoming Blitz world champion at 52, Smyslov reaching the Candidates final at 62, and a top 10 with an average age over 40 in the mid-70s.
All due to a full missing generation of players, namely the generation born around World War 2. This is also the reason for Fischer's extreme dominance, he had no peers to play against!
|May-18-18|| ||alexmagnus: <with an average age over 40 in the mid-70s.>|
In the late 70s I mean.
|May-19-18|| ||diagonal: <The reason for Fischer's extreme dominance, he had no peers to play against!> Come on, isn't that a little bit too simplified?|
Empirically, the number of chess players with an Elo of 2600 or 2700, and subsequently the number of players above 2700, was constant / stable after introduction of Elo for a long time, then suddenly increased:
>> In the first twenty years of Elo ratings, between 1970/71 and 1990, only four players achieved 2700 or more (namely Fischer, Karpov, Tal, and Kasparov, all of them outstanding players, considered as all-time-greats).
>> Since 1991, there are now more than Hundred players having achieved an Elo rating of 2700+ (including many players who rarely have won any international tournament of note).
For the very few 2700s ratings before 1990s, you are stipulating a lack of good young players, as a syndrome throughout two full decades..
Do you really believe that Miles, Nunn, or Speelman from the British chess invasion in the late 1970s and 1980s are all weaker players than let’s say David Howell? Howell easily surpassed the 2700 barrier, contrary to Miles, Nunn or Speelman!
Denying inflation means also, Berkes (2700+) must be stronger than Portisch (far below 2700 with a peak Elo at 2655), Van Wely (2700+) stronger than Timman (peak rating below 2700, but peak ranked as sole number two of the world), Fressinet (2700+) stronger than Lautier, or Peter Heine Nielsen better than great Bent Larsen (peak rating of 2660), etc., etc.
Compared to the first two decades after Elo introduction, the inflation effect is obvious: An Elo of 2650 had been easily sufficient for a clear Top Five / Top Ten ranking place during the 1970s till the late 1980s, today this nominal rating is not even enough for a Top Hundred rank.
|May-19-18|| ||ChessHigherCat: One thing you guys haven't mentioned is that there were so many severely underrated Soviet players for whatever reasons (they weren't allowed to travel freely to western tournaments?) so that with the (alleged) fall of Communism Russian players could suddenly gain Elo points much more easily. I can't recall the names but I've seen scads of old games played by Soviet players with ratings of 2250 or 2300 who should have had GM status by any objective standard. Now they would probably have the 2700+ rating they deserved.|
|May-19-18|| ||diagonal: Sure, there were several underrated (underestimated) Soviet chess players who did not play outside and thus never or rarely got a chance for a game with a foreign player (<paired comparison>), but that means, several western players, even if national champion of their country, had been overrated (overestimated) in tendency that time.|
The Elo System is by definition a <zero sum game>!
If a new strong player enters or people in general are getting better at chess (i.e. thanks to the computer, The Informator, or / and a dominant leading player, a golden generation, harder training methods, etc.), it shouldn't mean that average (median) ratings are going up!
That's the difference to let's say a new absolute record in athletics 100 metres, swimming, and so on. This is an important distinction.
|May-19-18|| ||alexmagnus: <If a new strong player enters or people in general are getting better at chess (i.e. thanks to the computer, The Informator, or / and a dominant leading player, a golden generation, harder training methods, etc.), it shouldn't mean that average (median) ratings are going up!>|
The average isn't going up. Average of <top X> goes up, but so does the number of players!
And the top can go up if the top improves earlier than the bottom (the average of the bottom goes down then). Which is the case with both the end of the "dying generation" era and the rise of computers.
|May-19-18|| ||alexmagnus: <Denying inflation means also, Berkes (2700+) must be stronger than Portisch (far below 2700 with a peak Elo at 2655), Van Wely (2700+) stronger than Timman (peak rating below 2700, but peak ranked as sole number two of the world), Fressinet (2700+) stronger than Lautier, or Peter Heine Nielsen better than great Bent Larsen (peak rating of 2660), etc., etc.>|
Keyword: TIME. ou wouldn't deny any modern GM plays better than Philidor, Morphy or Steinitz, would you?
Aso note that many of the players you mentioned were past their peak when the Elo system was introduced. This is also why their <peak Elo> is on the ver first Elo lists (especially true for Larsen and Spassky).
As for the system being stable - this is the consequence of the "dying generation" I mentioned. And the new players you mentioned of that era were nowhere near the absolute top. Hübner and Karpov were the first to break the "dying generation" barrier, but by being the first they still had to wait for the others to come. And they came - first tentatively, then, from 1985, looming (Kasparov's and Anand's generation).
|May-19-18|| ||alexmagnus: And now tell me another thing - do you think 12-year-old Judit Polgar played like a modern 2700?
The rating she had at 12 (2555) was never broken by any 12-year-old since.|
To me it's more reasonable to assume that she played at 2555 level at 12 and improved to 2735 at her peak that to assume that she was quite close to her peak at the age of 12 (which inflationist models would suggest).
|May-19-18|| ||nok: <It's not an inflationary burst, it's just an influx of good players> An influx of players, good and bad.|
<how can there be a subsiding burst anyway, in an inflation theory)?> Less influx.
|May-19-18|| ||diagonal: <Hübner and Karpov were the first to break the "dying generation" barrier> What are you talking about? |
Have a look of players reaching an Elo of 2700+ (some examples):
<Grachev, Motylev; Arechenko, Efimenko; Almasi Berkes; Howell, McShane; Fressinet, Edouard; Laznicka, Van Wely,> etc., etc.
Meanwhile the following players were never reaching a rating of 2700 Elo:
<Miles, Nunn, Speelman, Timman, Portisch, Ljubojevic, Lautier, Hübner, or Mecking, and many other top players>, all having their peak clearly after introduction of Elo system.
A player like Van Wely peaked above 2700 Elo, his compatriot Timman peaked below 2700 Elo.
Hübner, a world no.3 player achieved a peak rating at 2640 in 1981, meanwhile later players of the German Federation like Nisipeanu or Naiditsch quite easily reached 2700+.
|May-19-18|| ||diagonal: The basic principle of the (Elo) rating system is that the difference between the rating of any two participants should serve as a <predictor> for the expected outcome of a match between them.
The only thing that matters for the ratings are the final result of the game (win, draw, or lose).|
After a tournament finished, some players have gained points, some have lost, but in total always in a zero-sum. Technically it shouldn't have any inflation or deflation (conditional, both players have the same K-factor).
The Elo System is by definition a <zero sum game>!
Zero sum means, the median of the top ten, top fifty, top hundred should be stable (the number of players above a certain Elo rating should not change dramatically).
But since mid-1980s, the FIDE Elo Ratings have been drifting upwards on average. Inflation started at around 1986, with another inflationary burst around 2008 whereas in very recent times, there is data evidence that the FIDE Elo inflation period is stopped, the rating increase at the top is levelling off.
Compared to the first two decades after Elo introduction, the inflation effect is obvious: <An Elo of 2650 had been easily sufficient for a Top Five / Top Ten ranking place during the 1970s till the late 1980s, today this rating is not even enough for a Top Hundred rank>.
(This is my final posting on this topic for the moment)
|May-20-18|| ||alexmagnus: <Zero sum means, the median of the top ten, top fifty, top hundred should be stable (the number of players above a certain Elo rating should not change dramatically).>|
Wrong. Because the overall number of players is not constant. Being tenth of ten is not the same as being tenth of a million.
Talking about which. Imagine we actually have a close pool of ten rated players in the beginning. Then a million people join the pool. Should the rating of number ten remain the same after joining?