< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1907 OF 1907 ·
|Mar-08-14|| ||AylerKupp: <<john barleycorn> 1986? What happened except Kasparov was champion?>|
I haven't been able to find out anything significant. My first thought was that FIDE changed its rating formula, but that apparently was not the case. My second thought was that this was the result of lowering the ratings floor but this was not the case either; the ratings floor was approximately constant at about 2200 from 1970 to 1993, then it was dropped to 2000 where it stayed until 2001.
But this effect (constant until 1986 then rising steadily) <only> applies to the 10th ranked player. A similar effect but starting at different dates exists for the 50th ranked player (approximately constant until 1981, then rising steadily), the 100th ranked player (approximately constant until 1983, then rising steadily), the 200th ranked player (rising slowly until 1984, then increasing at a faster rate), and the 500th ranked player (rising slowly also until 1984, then increasing at a faster rate). Below that the rating of the 1000th, 2000th, 3000th, 4000th, and 5000th ranked players simply increased. So I don't think that rating inflation can be explained by looking only at the 10th ranked player or at 1986.
And an interesting phenomena started to manifest itself around 2006. The rating of the lower players not only slowed down but started to <decrease>, and this effect is clearly evident from the 5000th ranked player to the 500th ranked player and <possibly> for the 200th and 100th ranked player as well. But this effect is not apparent for these 2 latter groups until 2011, so it may just be a coincidence, not a trend.
I have what I call the "bottom feeder" hypothesis which seems reasonable to me and you can find it described in my forum's header.
|Mar-08-14|| ||Paraconti: March 9th here in Asia. Happy Birthday to a great champ!|
|Mar-09-14|| ||optimal play: I noticed that tonight on TV they're showing <Bobby Fischer Against the World>|
<Explores the complex life of the troubled genius whose charisma and talent spurred a worldwide fascination with the "game of kings". Fischer's evolution from childhood chess prodigy to global superstar, angry recluse and, finally, fugitive from the law is a spellbinding story of the making and unmaking of an American icon. Providing an unprecedented look at the man behind the headlines, this documentary weaves together news clips dating from the 1950s to the 2000s, photographs, letters and exclusive interviews with friends, fans and colleagues.>
And then I realised it's 9th March ... his birthday!
Who'd have thought TV programmers were so cognizant? :0
|Mar-09-14|| ||Diocletian: Some pictures taken by his friend, Harry Benson:
|Mar-09-14|| ||Penguincw: Happy (would've been) 71st birthday to Bobby Fischer. :)|
|Mar-09-14|| ||Everett: < RookFile: Karpov is evidence of rating inflation. He won numerous tournaments, yet the highest he ever got his rating was 2780. Around 1986 sounds about right for when the rating inflation started.>|
Inflation likely started when you beat up punching bags 6-0, 6-0 in matches, when theist three games in each match have more to do with match psychology rather than strength.
And walking away from the game takes all those points away. No one else could earn them back. This likely <deflated ELO> for a bit.
|Mar-09-14|| ||WhiteRook48: It's sad what happened to Fischer. He had some serious potential in life - he did get somewhere - but he crashed. |
Not all prodigies can handle the stress, I suppose?
|Mar-09-14|| ||Everett: Seriously, what happens to the ELO pool if the very very top player walks out with all those points? Is there then deflation? Was there deflation in 1973 and 2006, the years after Fischer and Kasparov retired?|
|Mar-10-14|| ||offramp: In 60MG Fischer constantly repeats the phrases <with a pull> or <with a bind>.|
He was the only one who understood what those phrases meant, and alas the secret died with him.
|Mar-10-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson>: <He also said all the Karpov and Kasparov matches were fixed>|
Not only Karpov-Kasparov. Fischer claimed that the Karpov-Korchnoi matches were also pre-arranged, move for move. It looks as though he couldn't stand the idea of the world championship going on without him, so he convinced himself that it wasn't. Not really. None of the games were real games.
<He was clearly mentally ill and the last thing anyone should have done is stick a microphone under his nose.>
I basically agree with you, but think it's a more difficult decision than you may think. For the media (few of whom have medical credentials) to take it on themselves to diagnose medical conditions and censor famous people based on their own, possibly biased medical evaluations is also tricky. For example, is Martin Sheen crazy? How about Joe Biden? If not those two, are there others who should be blackballed?
<the year before he walked out of the Sousse Interzonal whilst leading.>
This is one of the many pervasive Fischer myths. Fischer was indeed leading the tournament when the trouble began, but not when he dropped out. Due to forfeits, Larsen was actually ahead of Fischer even before Fischer forfeited their game with each other and left the tournament.
|Mar-10-14|| ||Everett: <offramp: In 60MG Fischer constantly repeats the phrases <with a pull> or <with a bind>.|
He was the only one who understood what those phrases meant, and alas the secret died with him.>
That's nonsense. You know what a <pull> and a <bind> is.
|Mar-10-14|| ||Petrosianic: <That's nonsense. You know what a <pull> and a <bind> is.>|
Of course. A pull is something you do to taffy. Obviously, Fischer meant that he had a snack after that move.
A binder is something you keep looseleaf paper in. Apparently, they left a couple of letters off and need to make a correction.
|Mar-10-14|| ||HeMateMe: Why do people feel that Martin Sheen and Joe Biden are crazy?|
|Mar-10-14|| ||RookFile: <Everett: Inflation likely started when you beat up punching bags 6-0, 6-0 in matches, when theist three games in each match have more to do with match psychology rather than strength. >|
I'm afraid you don't make any sense. Fischer stopped playing chess right after beating Spassky, so in no way did Fischer contribute to rating inflation.
|Mar-10-14|| ||Petrosianic: Sorry, I should have said Charlie Sheen.
Biden, of course has been the victim of numerous foot in mouth gaffes, which, to be fair, seem to be an occupational hazard for politicians. Giggling like a loon all through a major debate had some questioning his sanity. The important thing isn't whether you agree or disagree, but whether the press should presume to make their own medical diagnoses of people who have not been diagnosed by the medical community.
It's a tough issue. I can think of some cases where they probably should, but there's a potential legal liability, if they say or imply too clearly that "We're not letting you on our program because you're crazy."
On the other hand, in Fischer's case, Radyo Bombo should clearly have pulled the plug once he got to the point of giving out one of his enemy's addresses out over the air, and trying to get him killed. The plug should be pulled long before that.
|Mar-10-14|| ||RookFile: A more interesting factor is the converse: when a player hangs around too long. He's got a high rating, but rather than retire, just keeps playing and playing. Ok - that means he loses because he's past his prime, and is feeding rating points to the younger players. For example, Karpov plays today just for his own amusement, but his rating has lowered to a laughable 2619. Numerous players have chalked up some rating points by beating him.|
|Mar-10-14|| ||HeMateMe: Fischer wasn't guilty of "foot in the mouth." Bob was living on another planet.|
If there is an afterlife, I hope he has found peace (and, a better pawn structure, of course...).
|Mar-10-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Everett>: <Seriously, what happens to the ELO pool if the very very top player walks out with all those points?>|
I don't think it has much effect. The Rating system "predicts" that people will play at the same level as their current rating. Which means that in theory, the other players should neither have gained from or lost points to him.
Rating inflation is usually caused by an influx of new players into the pool. Giving 100 free points to every woman in the world except Judit Polgar didn't help things either.
|Mar-10-14|| ||Petrosianic: One thing that does cause deflation is improvement in playing strength, combined with a small player's pool.
For example, imagine this scenario. Due to study and improvement, you now play at 1800 strength. But your last published rating is 1500.|
You play a long series of games with an 1800 player. Since you both play at 1800 strength, you should score 50% against each other over time, barring further improvement. But if this happens, you won't both end up rated 1800. You'll meet in the middle at 1650, even though you're both playing like 1800's.
In a larger pool, some influx of new players makes up for this, but as long as the two of you play each other only, you'll be underrated.
|Mar-10-14|| ||Jim Bartle: <Giving 100 free points to every woman in the world except Judit Polgar didn't help things either.>|
I'm pretty sure that was Zsuzsa Polgar.
|Mar-10-14|| ||perfidious: It was indeed <Susan Polgar>.|
|Mar-10-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Petrosianic: One thing that does cause deflation is improvement in playing strength, combined with a small player's pool. For example, imagine this scenario. Due to study and improvement, you now play at 1800 strength. But your last published rating is 1500.|
You play a long series of games with an 1800 player. Since you both play at 1800 strength, you should score 50% against each other over time, barring further improvement. But if this happens, you won't both end up rated 1800. You'll meet in the middle at 1650, even though you're both playing like 1800's.>
This is something I don't understand.
Under which scenario will the 1500 rated player leave the match with 1800 rating points and the 1800 rated player with 1500 points? What if there is a rating floor of 1750 for the 1800 rated player? What if the 1500 rated player wins 100% then?
|Mar-10-14|| ||Everett: <I'm afraid you don't make any sense. Fischer stopped playing chess right after beating Spassky, so in no way did Fischer contribute to rating inflation.>|
I'm afraid you missed the point. Fischer's <own > rating was inflated.
|Mar-10-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Under which scenario will the 1500 rated player leave the match with 1800 rating points and the 1800 rated player with 1500 points?>|
That shouldn't happen unless the 1800 player has lost strength.
<What if there is a rating floor of 1750 for the 1800 rated player? What if the 1500 rated player wins 100% then?>
Rating floors would change things. In that case, the two players would eventually meet at 1750 (theoretically).
Rating floors can cause inflation if abused too much. I may be remembering wrong, but I once looked up Jerry Hanken, and found that he had ended something like 50 consecutive tournaments at his rating floor of 2200. He must have been playing well below that level, and causing rating inflation all over Southern California. Because if he was playing at 2000-2100 level, playing a LOT of games, and everybody who played him got credit for playing a 2200 player, and their ratings went up but his didn't go down, he must have been a Human Rating Points Factory.
|Mar-10-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Petrosianic> thank you. One more question: without a rating floor for the 1800 guy and 3300 points at disposal where would the 1500 guy end up if winning all games? At 2200?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1907 OF 1907 ·