PGN Upload Utility

He is playing 1st board in the Bundesliga today at 1400 CET (1 hour from now).

Is there enough strength left in the old champ (currently Elo 2617) to beat GM Jobava Elo 2712?

it's about a point of view

I don't think that there's a rating inflation - pushing yourself up to the standard of play that gets you even the Candidate Master title, at FIDE 2200, is hard as hell - try it and you'll see...

So who's a master today, let's say an FM, has gained a very respectful title; the guy knows a lot and sees a lot. I'm not convinced that he knows or sees less than anyone else who was called 'master' throughout the ages.

Same goes for the higher titles and levels.

So - do the top 40 today play as well as, or better than Karpov in the 1970?

The phenomenal master of the endgame, or subtle manoeuvering, or positional shades and nuances?

The one who crushes the opposition slowly but surely, with deadly precision?

The guy whose grip won't be relaxed? Who pushes to realization every minutest advantage and never for his life lets go of it?

The guy who was precise as a machine, and even Kasparov couldn't better him, except by a hair, for so many long years?

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Of course, it doesn't mean that the top 40 today all play in his style or use his ways of squeezing their points out of their opponents... but are they really as good or better? Could it be?

- - - - - - - - - - - -

But why not look at it this way - why not say...

Karpov was a legendary, amazing, totally phenomenal player, who was the fear of the 1970s after Bobby Fischer gracefully (or less so) left the stage

1) Of course players today are better than decades ago. I'm not surprised that number 40 plays better chess than Karpov in the 70s. For the same reasons an average physics Phd today knows more than Isaac Newton did.

Does it means that it's better/smarter than Newton, on of the best minds of all times? Of course not.

2) Rating is not an absolute measure of strength, like times in running competitions.

It's always relative to other players.

So yes, there is rating inflation and you can't compare ratings between different decades.

Today Carlsen can keep a 2800+ raing scoring +2 or +3 in supertournaments, because he plays 2700+ and some 2800+ opponents.

Rating is a system that shows in how good or bad shape you are.

There is an argument also for deflation in FIDE ratings.

Many new people enter the lists on every update. How do they enter?

They play a number of rated games. If they make 50% or less, their new rating matches their performance. Let's suppose that you're 'worth' 2100. You play a tournament and scored 3 out of 9 against 2230 opposition - your new rating will be 2100 more or less. Same if you did 4.5 out of 9 against 2100 opposition.

BUT - many of these people will score better than 50%. For example, you could score 6 out of 9 against 1970 opposition - still an approximately 2100 performance. However, according to FIDE's rating rules, you'll enter the system at around 2007. Many people enter the system with ratings that are too low in that way - I guess that it's just so it will be possible to protect against inflation...

however - now you're a 2007 rated player who's actually worth 2100. What will you do? You'll start robbing other players (hence, the system), from their scores until you make 2100, which is your level.

Until you actually reach that number, win, draw, or lose, every opponent who plays you gets whatever change they would get against a 'real' 2007 (or whatever number you reach along the way) while actually facing a 2100.

So - is there actual rating deflation?

Better: yes
Smarter: no.

A better physicist is someone who can explain more. And here the modern student clearly wins. A smarter physicist is someone who can come up with more own ideas - and here Newton wins.