< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 113 OF 113 ·
|Feb-11-19|| ||andrewjsacks: One looks at a typical FIDE rating list from the 1960's and '70's and finds only about 10 players 2600 or above. It takes no Einstein to compare that to today's top ratings to see that rating inflation is somewhere about 100 points. Probably a much more interesting question is whether, say, an 1800 player today equates to one of that rating in, say, 1970.|
|Feb-11-19|| ||perfidious: <andy>, true, yet there are those who persist in proclaiming that 2600 nowadays is impressive, when that figure and a couple quid get a coffee at the corner shop, not an invitation to an elite event. 'Course, even 2700 doesn't get you there most of the time, for more than one reason.|
|Feb-11-19|| ||nok: Funny how AK & I, each in our own style and number of keystrokes, get about the same result.|
|Feb-11-19|| ||beatgiant: <Violin sonata>|
I'm actually not sure how many FIDE rated players there were in 1970, but it's safe to say significantly fewer than there are today. If so, "top 10" today is a higher percentile ranking than it was in 1970, which invalidates some of the arguments above.
But roughly speaking, <in the 1970s to 1980s, a rating of 2700 like a rating of 2800 in nowadays> by some definition of the terms.
|Feb-11-19|| ||nok: You weren't rated below 2200 then so percentiles aren't of much help.|
|Feb-11-19|| ||beatgiant: Under any reasonable assumptions, "top 10 out of 300,000 players" is a greater distinction than "top 10 out of 100,000 players." If we treat "top 10" as some kind of fixed benchmark, we'd need to explain how we take that into account.|
|Feb-11-19|| ||nok: Top 10 is easy to grasp as it's roughly what's considered candidates' level. If you're saying yesteryear's top 10 is closer to today's top 30, well maybe. What's 40 points between friends.|
|Feb-12-19|| ||andrewjsacks: <perf> Thank you.|
|Feb-12-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<perfidious> are those who persist in proclaiming that 2600 nowadays is impressive>|
I don't know your rating but for to me a rating of 2600+ is indeed impressive, and a rating of 2700+ is even more impressive! The current FIDE rating list (Feb-2019) has 168,346 <active> rated players and 159,590 <inactive> rated players for a total of 327,937 rated players (FIDE starting reporting the number of active and inactive rated players separately in 1991). The active list contains 42 players rated 2700+ and 247 rated 2600+, about 0.026% and 0.155% respectively. Among the inactive players only Kasparov and Leinier-Dominguez are rated 2700+, about 0.00125% and there are 23 players (including Kasparov and Leinier-Dominguez) are rated 2600+, about 0.0144%, both a much smaller percentage than for the active players. The effect of ratings inflation perhaps?
So, on a percentage basis, the number of active players rated 2700+ and 2600+ seems impressive to me, although you're right in that having a 2600+ or even a 2700+ rating does not guarantee an invitation to a top international tournament, although it certainly helps. Still, I think it's an impressive accomplishment to have reached those rating levels even though it won't pay your bills.
|Feb-12-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<nok> Funny how AK & I, each in our own style and number of keystrokes, get about the same result.>|
I don't know, I've been saying the same thing for several years so perhaps you were subliminally influenced by reading my repeated posts on the subject. You certainly never presented any data to back up what you said. On what did you base your opinion?
|Feb-12-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<beatgiant> I'm actually not sure how many FIDE rated players there were in 1970, but it's safe to say significantly fewer than there are today.>|
I'm sure by looking at the FIDE rating lists, and you can check it by downloading the small spreadsheet whose link I posted in my forum's header. At 1970 year-end there were 547 rated players and, as I mention in my response to <perfidious> above, in the current FIDE rating list there are 168,346 active rated players and 159,590 inactive players.
<If we treat "top 10" as some kind of fixed benchmark, we'd need to explain how we take that into account.>
What do you mean "we", Kemo Sabey? <Violin Sonata>'s original question referred to players rated 2700 from the 1970s to the 1980s and players rated 2800 today. Certainly in the 1970s to 1980s being rated 2700+ put you in the top 10 rated players in the world just like today being rated 2800+ put you in the top 10 rated players in the world. What relevance do the other 300,000+ rated players have that needs to be taken into account?
|Feb-12-19|| ||beatgiant: <AylerKupp>
A rating is an indicator of relative performance. All else being equal, the 10th rank out of 160,000 is a higher relative performance than the 10th rank out of 550.
To account for that, we could compare more than 10 today versus 10 in 1970 by using some scaling method, or we could state our special assumptions about the distribution of performances at the top to explain why it still makes sense to use only 10.
|Feb-12-19|| ||beatgiant: <AylerKupp>
I invite you to my forum for any further math discussions.
|Feb-12-19|| ||nok: <perhaps you were subliminally influenced by reading my repeated posts> Or not.|
<You certainly never presented any data to back up what you said.> Maybe my post was too short and you blinked. First, I think Violin was talking about 1980, when Tal got to 2700. I said he was +100 over #10 ie. candidate level. That would be 2860 today.
<beat>'s argument is the pool may be denser now, which makes sense but isn't that obvious. You can't reason on total number on players because there used to be a cutoff at 2200.
|Feb-13-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<nok> First, I think Violin was talking about 1980, when Tal got to 2700>|
I don't know why you would think that since <Violin sonata> explicitly said "so i just found out that in the 1970s to 1980s, a rating of 2700 like a rating of 2800 in nowadays" that this meant that he was talking only about 1980 and Tal in particular. Why would you think that?
And, yes, you said that because Tal's rating was about 2700 in 1980 (and he wasn't, he was rated 2705 in 1979 and 2555 in 1980, a 150 rating point drop in only 1 year) and he was rated 100 points over the #10 rated player (Gheorghiu) that he would be 2860 today.
How did you come up with that rating of 2860? Did you just make it up because it seemed like a good number? I can't see any basis for you reaching that conclusion. And how would the hypothetical rating growth of <one> player have any significant influence on the hypothetical ratings growth of <all> the other players? Is it just because you decided to post that magic number in Tal's page?
|Feb-15-19|| ||nok: <a rating of 2700 like a rating of 2800 in nowadays" that this meant that he was talking only about 1980 and Tal in particular. Why would you think that?> A wild guess is that we're on Tal's page.|
<he was rated 2705 in 1979 and 2555 in 1980> http://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/Elo198...
<How did you come up with that rating of 2860?>
Read it again, Sam. Mikhail Tal (kibitz #2827)
|Feb-19-19|| ||Violin sonata: first of all I want to apologize because the arguments I made above are not based on concrete sources (it is just my opinion), but after I searched on internet, this is what I found on wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/197..., although there is no list in the year of 1980.|
<A rating is an indicator of relative performance.> but I would agree with <beatgiant>
|Jul-22-19|| ||diagonal: A sad moment for Mikhail Tal, the <Great Attacker>, last week-end he lost his NOTABLE GAMES, NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS, and GAME COLLECTIONS on Chessgames.|
Apparently the same day as Viktor Korchnoi, the <Great Counter-Attacker>, who is now dismantled, too.
|Jul-22-19|| ||James Demery: I just saw that diagonal. I wonder what happened? Tal was a World Champion. VK was never WC, but he was a great player! Both players had some great games.|
|Jul-22-19|| ||diagonal: They belong, indubitably, to the greatest chess players of modern times.|
Hope, <Chessgames> fix these bugs soon.
|Aug-17-19|| ||fabelhaft: Tal and Kasparov played a blitz match in December 1978. The 15-year-old Kasparov did not yet have any Elo rating then, but in January 1980 he appeared as shared 15th while Tal was #2 on the same list.|
The 1978 blitz match consisted of 14 games and finished 7-7. The game scores are included in Nikitin’s new Coaching Kasparov book.
|Sep-07-19|| ||MissScarlett: YT comment: <Tom Knezovic 3 days ago|
Tal may not be the G.O.A.T. but he looks the most like a goat.>
|Sep-07-19|| ||Check It Out: What a dweeb. Tal was a chick magnet.|
|Sep-07-19|| ||perfidious: <AK>, I was a halfway strong player in my best days, with a FIDE rating of 2186 at the time of retirement eighteen years ago, and got to sit across the board from a number of titled players in my day. Nowhere near the class of those GMs or IMs, but no milksop, either. |
For all that, I stand by my post above: 2600 today does not even get one near the top 100 players overall, so certainly while that player will be a GM, there are a powerful lot more of those than formerly.
|Sep-13-19|| ||diagonal: The <Notable Games> (and corresponding cg. features) of Tal, Korchnoi and all other players who were concerned, are back and fixed properly. <Good news, and many thanks!>|
Grandmaster Zenon Franco Ocampos on legendary Mikhail Tal: https://chess24.com/en/read/news/ta...
(with various pictures from the Dutch Anefo archive, Tal played five times in the traditional Wijk aan Zee Hoogovens series, and won it in 1973; main focus of the article is on Tal's last tournament in classical chess at Barcelona 1992, that year, the city was hosting the Summer Olympic games).
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 113 OF 113 ·