|
| page 2 of 21; games 26-50 of 505 |
     |
 |
|
| page 2 of 21; games 26-50 of 505 |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-21-16
 | | HeMateMe: <Would be nice if he got a Tata B invite out of this besides the automatic World Cup spot.> Indeed, and a good carrot to get more of the top juniors to play this event. |
|
| Aug-21-16 | | Keyser Soze: <Mature playing style already like a young Magnus. His game looks very balanced, tactical, strategic and sound end game technique too.> Really? I will check his games soon especially from this tourney. Very curious about it. |
|
| Aug-22-16 | | lentil: Watch out, Magnus! |
|
Aug-22-16
| | HeMateMe: Not too many folks here named Billy, or mitch. The USA has to pull up it's socks. |
|
| Aug-22-16 | | fisayo123: <HeMateMe> It's the World Juniors not the US junior championship. |
|
Aug-22-16
| | HeMateMe: I know. I just wish there was one or two kids from Peoria or Thousand Oaks. Hey, times change. |
|
| Sep-01-16 | | diagonal: The record of Lautier as <the youngest World Junior Chess Champion> survived. Lautier at approx. 15 yrs 6mths (27th ch at in 1988):
http://www.brasilbase.pro.br/w20b19...
Xiong at approx. 16yrs minus 2 mths (55th ch in 2016): http://www.brasilbase.pro.br/w20b20... So far, four Junior WC went on to become World Chess Champion: Spassky, Karpov, Kasparov, and Anand. Two Junior WC failed to achieve the GM title (so far): IM Carlos Bielicki who apparently never was a professional player, and .. IM Werner Hug (born in 1952), the surprising winner in 1971. Nota:
After winning the World Junior Championship in 1971, Hug entered in the following FIDE ELO list in 1972 (then yearly and at somewhat unregular published) at ELO <Rating> of 2475, with a <Ranking> as no. 106= of the world. In 2014, Hug (still regularly active in national team competitions and multiple member of the Swiss Olympiad Team between 1972 up and including 2014) reached his individual peak nominal ELO rating at age of 62. In the current FIDE ELO list of September 2016, compared with more than forty years ago in the July 1972 to June 1973 ELO list, he is slightly <HIGHER in Rating>! But <in Ranking he LOST MORE THAN THOUSAND POSITIONS> and is now no. 1216 of the world (all players). Conclusions - we can choose:
i) evidence for ELO Inflation
ii) much more active (and rated) player today
iii) rating says little in historical comparisons, ranking does matter at the highest level i & ii & iii, and apart, Hug is a notorious drawing master, at least partly due to ELO inflation he could "frozen" <his ELO during more than forty years, always in the range between 2400, never below, and 2499, never above>. No GM norm at all (but please, don't ask him why he never made a GM norm) |
|
Sep-02-16
 | | alexmagnus: Actually, the fact that Hug's rating is stuck in the same number range for all those years is an argument against inflation and not for it. As it would be short of a miracle of he declined at more or less exactly the inflation pace - and that constantly over 40 years :D |
|
Sep-02-16
| | alexmagnus: Also, the range is even much narrower than you saifd. It's not even 2400-2499. His highest was 2485. His lowest - not sure what (have no ratings from 2000-2016, had the 2485 peak from Wikipedia) apparently 2420. |
|
| Sep-02-16 | | dx9293: <diagonal> The late IM Mark Diesen (World Junior Champion in 1976) also did not achieve the GM title. In those days the winner of the tournament got an automatic IM title only. From 1993 all winners of the Open section receive the GM title (and all winners of the Girls section receive the WGM title). |
|
| Sep-03-16 | | diagonal: <dx9293> thanks for your correction, I completely missed IM Mark Diesen (R.I.P.): gm norm(s) yes, gm title no, but presumably of GM strength by the late 1970's. ..and your important addition: In those days the winner of the World Junior WC tournament got an automatic IM title (only) |
|
| Sep-03-16 | | diagonal: <alexmagnus> Werner Hug is an illustration of how inflated the FIDE Elo System is: His rating stucked in the same number range for all those forty years, but in ranking he dropped more than thousand positions! The Elo System (maintained by Prof. Elo himself up to the mid-1980s) is by definition a <zero sum game>, so even if people in general are getting better at chess (i.e. thanks to computer and databases, or / and a dominant leading player, harder training methods, etc.), it shouldn't mean that average (median) ratings in are going up! Thus the Elo System can be used in other fields as well. That's the difference to let's say a new absolute record in athletics 100 metres, swimming, etc. This is an important distinction. If you are expected to score 70%, and you only score 60%, your Elo rating will go down. Conversely, if you are expected to score 20%, and you score eg. 30%, then your rating will go up despite the fact that you lost more games than you won. Always in a zero-sum. The Elo chess ratings (median rating of top 10, median rating of top 100, etc.) for the strongest players were fairly constant in the late 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s; there have been a regular good dozen of players with more than 2600 Elo points. The domination of the no. 1 player can vary: Fischer was more dominant than Karpov (the only no. 1 player with an Elo rating sometimes below 2700), Kasparov as World champion was much more dominant than Kramnik as World champion, as prominent examples. Zero sum means, the median of the top ten, top fifty, top hundred should be stable. In other words: the number of players above a certain Elo rating should not change. But since around 1985/86 the <FIDE Elo Ratings> have been drifting upwards on average: http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/.
Several articles, mostly by statisticians have been published on this topic and how to devise an even more accurate <method for measuring chess strength and predicting results>, most notably by Jeff Sonas, inventor of the rectified (inflation-free) chessmetrics, Rod Edwards (Edo historical chess ratings), Ken Thompson, Mark Glickmann, John Nunn, and Arpad Elo himself who had already a predecessor, Kenneth Harkness, creator of the USCF Harkness system. Still there is some disagreement in the chess community as to the cause of this FIDE Elo Inflation. In no particular order, some notes from the time when Campomanes came in office: The Karpov rule (a joke), a 100 bonus points to all (!) women (completely arbitrary), minus Judit Polgar, the free choice at team events whether or whether not your results should be rated (decision at Dubai Olympiads), alle these nonsense is no longer in force, but the initial inflation damage is done. Remaining technical issues: the notorious K-factor determing how sensitive (volatile) your system is, rating floors, the management of entries and drop-outs (inactive players, how to define a minimum of played games), or the disparity limits (400 point rule). The Chinese top player Li Chao achieved at an Open tournament a 2622 Elo performance, RELATIVELY below his then already 2693 Elo rating. In spite of this he had still managed to gain 5.6 Elo points. How is this possible? https://en.chessbase.com/post/elo-o... Of course, at its introduction, the computational task was comparatively easy because only some hundred player in closed round Robin tournaments were rated by FIDE and the minimum FIDE rating was Elo 2200. In other words, the greatest disparity possible was around 500 Elo points, but now games with up to about 1500 Elo difference could take place and there are many ten thousands of rated players, in total most games in open tournaments. From a practical point of view, on top level, we should more focus on (peak) ranking rather than (peak) rating. Further reading User: AylerKupp
(section on Elo inflation, scroll down):
(quote) <looking at the data through 2015 it is even more evident that the era of ratings inflation appears to be over> Apparently there are now too many underestimated / underrated young players, meanwhile the (on average) declining players aged 50plus are a group of their own and playing primarily each others in Senior events |
|
Sep-05-16
| | alexmagnus: <Werner Hug is an illustration of how inflated the FIDE Elo System is: His rating stucked in the same number range for all those forty years, but in ranking he dropped more than thousand positions! > As I say, it's more probably that he was stable all those 40 years than he declined at exactly the inflation pace. Who even declines so steadily? As for his ranking dropped - well, the total number of players increased dramatically, especially since the advent of Internet chess. As for the 400 point rule: while the higher rated player gains a few extra points, the lower rated player loses even more extra points (even more because the lower rated player is normally in a higher K factor range!) |
|
Sep-05-16
| | alexmagnus: And there are no USCF-like rating floors in FIDE ratings, by the way. |
|
Sep-05-16
| | alexmagnus: <Several articles, mostly by statisticians have been published on this topic and how to devise an even more accurate <method for measuring chess strength and predicting results>, most notably by Jeff Sonas, inventor of the rectified (inflation-free) chessmetrics, Rod Edwards (Edo historical chess ratings), Ken Thompson, Mark Glickmann, John Nunn, and Arpad Elo himself who had already a predecessor, Kenneth Harkness, creator of the USCF Harkness system.> Glockman simply uses variable K factor.
As for the "inflation free" chessmetrics: did you know that if you use his "inflation adjustment" algorithm on Elo ratings, you end up with the conlcusion that Elo ratings are deflating? And what makes you think it is inflation free? Ypu sop favourite "ranking argument" fails namely. Badly fails. In 1970, #100 on Chessmetrics is 2570. In 2005, it is 2612. |
|
Sep-05-16
| | alexmagnus: ... And in 1930 - 2460 |
|
Sep-05-16
| | alexmagnus: And funny you mention Thompson and Nunn. Didn't Nunn argument that average 1910 top players played at 2100 level? |
|
Sep-05-16
| | alexmagnus: And as for why top ratings stopped rising, my arguments of non-inflationary ratings are much more conclusive. The halt started namely not at the top but at the bottom. The year with most new GMs was 2007. The year with most new 2700s was 2008. The year with highest average rating of top-100 was 2012, as was the year with most active 2700s simultaneously. |
|
Sep-05-16
| | alexmagnus: Number of <new> 2700s per year in the 21st century, in brackets number of historical 2700s who died that year 2001 4
2002 2
2003 5
2004 3
2005 4
2006 2
2007 4
2008 13 (1)
2009 6
2010 9
2011 9
2012 8
2013 4
2014 5 (1)
2015 5
2016 so far 2
The number are small enough so that when the oldest 2700 start dying, the number of living historical 2700s will be stable. Just they are not yet old enough to die (the oldest living historical 2700 is Karpov, and he is only 65) |
|
| Sep-05-16 | | diagonal: An inflation of postings indeed :) don't take my review on Elo Inflation personal. The list with (new) entries of 2700+ Elo players per year supports the "ranking argument" and shows that there has been inflation: in the 1970s and 1980s normally only one single player was above 2700 (Fischer, then Karpov, Tal once, later Karpov and rising Kasparov); for some Elo lists there was even no player at all at 2700plus. Players like Spassky or Korchnoi, despite ranked no. 2, were never rated at 2700 in FIDE Elo, but today there are about 40 players rated at Elo 2700 or higher. Thus, in historical comparisons, ranking matters, not nominal rating, referring to top-level. IM Werner Hug declined at plus / minus the inflation pace, that's why I choose him to illustrate the phenomena! His individual peak rating in Sonas chessmetrics dates from the year 1984, but his individual peak rating according to the official FIDE Elo lists is from September 2014... It is plausible that far back in the year 1930 the sample of Sonas rated player's was smaller than today in FIDE pool, therefore the number hundred (something) player prior WWI was lower rated than the number hundred (something) in the 2000s, the total number of rated players increased massively (cp. conclusions in the initial posting on Junior WCC Hug). Sometimes the objection is heard, that players today are getting better with engines and databases. Of course they do, as for instance players from the mid-1960s, 1970s on learned with the new information system of codes for the classification of chess (openings) offered eg. by The Chess Informant. For two decades prior to the emergence of computer databases, Chess Informant publications were a leading source of games and analysis for serious chess players – yet the Elo ratings (average) then remained stable as they should! The Elo rating system is by definition a zero-sum game. Technically it shouldn't have any inflation or deflation. To sum it up: Inflation started at around 1985/86, with another inflationary burst around 2007/08: http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/
http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/up...
In recent years there is data evidence that the FIDE Elo inflation period is over. Recommended reading by User: AylerKupp see above. |
|
Sep-06-16
| | alexmagnus: <diagonal> With your Informant argument you miss one point. Who except for the professionals read chess informant? Nobody... But internet made chess - including top chess - available to the general public. Which made the average player much stronger than yesteryear. But stronger average produces also stronger top. Especially since not only did the average become stronger, the number of players increased dramatically, again due to Internet. And number of new 2700s show no inflation. "In 1970s there was only one 2700 player" - yes, but there were less players generally. Also remember my Fischer argument - Fischer was so dominant because he had no peers on top (practical vacuum within 5 years to both sides). It's as if Carlsen were born into a world without Karjakin, Caruana, Nakamura, Giri.... |
|
Sep-06-16
| | alexmagnus: ... And there was another trend. The thing with the average player improved chess from below. While the presence of a dominant player - Kasparov - improved it from above. In any sport (take sports with objective measures and you'll see what I mean) the appearance of a dominant player leads to other players closing on him, improving general top results. As for the mechanism which made this improvement being seen in ratings: the improvement was not simultaneous. First Kasparov's direct competitors improved, then the competitors of his competitos and so on. Same happened in Lasker time by the way - compare the top games of the Steinitz era with those of the Capablanca era. |
|
| Oct-11-16 | | technical draw: I thank all who have posted about ELO ratings. This is very instructive reading. I was thinking about applying the mathematics of ELO rating to horse race handicapping. However the short lifespan (or racespan) of an individual horse does not provide the necessary mathematical information to make a good decision on the outcome of a single race. |
|
Sep-03-17
 | | Tabanus: Ordnung ist das halbe Leben. Standings list updated for all players. I found no missing games. Two wrong game results: D Viennot vs S Sammed Jaykumar, 2016 (should be 0-1) and Alexis Tahay vs R Thogersen, 2016 (should be 1-0) (correction slips sent). |
|
Oct-26-23
 | | FSR: Dominating performance by Xiong, giving up just five draws in 13 games and finishing a point ahead of Artemiev, the sole second-place finisher. And all at age 15! |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
NOTE: Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
