On ratings:

Elo ratings reflect relative and not absolute chess strength.

Chess players are naturally arranged in populations partitioned by geopolitical regions and time periods that have infrequent contacts with one another. Within such a population, players get to play each other more frequently, thus forming a quasi-equilibrium group wherein individual ratings would tend to equilibrate quickly; but not with outside groups. With caveats and in the proper context, FIDE/Elo ratings are simply fallible descriptors and predictors of an active player's near-past and near-future performances against other rated players, and only within the same quasi-equilibrium group.

As corollaries: the best way to evaluate a player's strength is to analyze his games and not his ratings; one cannot use ratings to accurately compare the quality of play of players from the past and present, or even the same player a decade ago and today; and <care should be taken in the use of ratings as a criterion in choosing which players to seed into the upper levels of the World Championship cycle.> All the above often entail comparisons between players from different quasi-equilibrium groups separated by space and/or time.

It's described as a previous post (date when posted would have been useful), so possibly old and definitely outdated.

So, addressing this:

1) Chess players are no longer limited by location regarding who they play. Leaving aside the internet, OTB opportunities include national and international events, of which there have been decades of international events and opens players can travel to. Author describes "statistical inbreeding" to explain depressed ratings, which is correct, but not true of the chess world currently for IM/GM players who are active internationally.

2) "care should be taken for in the use of ratings for criterion in choosing which players to seed into the upper levels of the World Champioship cycle." Currently FIDE reserves on place in the candidates tournament for the top rated player meeting the requirement of minimum number of rated games played in defined preceding period- that is, controlling for players who stop playing because they attain a high Elo. So care has been taken to ensure this is robust method of ensuring a strong chess player who is a potential world champion challenger is included in the Candidates if they do not qualify by other performance-based means.

3) " If the top 20 players were to suffer a serious brain injury and begin playing like patzers, but play no one else for the next decade, they would more or less retain their 2700s ratings, although they would be playing terrible patzerish chess."

This is called a "straw man argument", which is a set of unrealistic premises set out to try to support an argument. It is obviously unrealistic from beginning to end, with the key point being "if the top 20 only played each other for the next decade" to try to show how the Elo system is fallible. They haven't, and they won't.

If I must say so, they still are. For example, Chinese players mostly play only in China, and so probably form a quasi-equilibrium group separate from European based players.

It's also true for Philippine chess players, who can barely afford to play abroad in Europe. Contact with European players or even Chinese players are at the extreme minimum. So Philippine chess players also form a quasi-equilibrium group by their own.

The same is true for many Asian and African countries. They lack opportunities to play higher rated players in Europe. Most simply lack the money to go to Europe. Thus, it's more difficult to attain higher ratings.

Americans more often go to Europe, and so probably belong to the same quasi-equilibrium group as Europeans.

<FIDE reserves on place in the candidates tournament for the top rated player meeting the requirement of minimum number of rated games played in defined preceding period- that is, controlling for players who stop playing because they attain a high Elo. So care has been taken to ensure this is robust method of ensuring a strong chess player who is a potential world champion challenger is included in the Candidates if they do not qualify by other performance-based means.>

That's good news.

On the other hand, <The same is true for many Asian and African countries. They lack opportunities to play higher rated players in Europe. Most simply lack the money to go to Europe. Thus, it's more difficult to attain higher ratings.> still holds true.

For this reason I believe that the zonals and interzonal system that don't use ratings affords more opportunities for these players in Asia and Africa that belong to quasi-equilibrium groups with lower average ratings.

<"If the top 20 players were to suffer a serious brain injury and begin playing like patzers, but play no one else for the next decade, they would more or less retain their 2700s ratings, although they would be playing terrible patzerish chess."

This is called a "straw man argument">

<Conclusion

The research concludes that Nakamura’s winning streak is best explained by his exceptional skill and a real but rare statistical occurrence, not by cheating. It urges careful, critical interpretation of statistical evidence to avoid damaging reputations based on flawed reasoning.>

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review...

If I must say so, they still are. For example, Chinese players mostly play only in China, and so probably form a quasi-equilibrium group separate from European based players.>

* cough *
* Ding Liren has entered the chat *
* cough *
* Ju Wenju has entered the chat *
* cough *

Literally both world champions were (and one still is) Chinese, two Chinese players contested the match for the women's world championship, and there are plenty of other examples of Chinese players on the international arena. Could you be more wrong?

As it turns out, yes, you could. And the reason is that China has, for decades, been inviting strong Western chess players to play in events in China. Who, for example?

* cough *
* Magnus Carlsen has entered the chat *

Magnus Carlsen has played in Chinese chess tournaments, against Chinese chess players, as have many other strong professional GMs, for, as said, literally decades- going back to 1987 at least. Clearly, the bit you were unaware of (and apparently still are) is that China has had an active program for decades of inviting strong GMs to play in China so Chinese players could get the experience of playing them. Planes fly in both directions, who knew.

<It's also true for Philippine chess players, who can barely afford to play abroad in Europe. Contact with European players or even Chinese players are at the extreme minimum. So Philippine chess players also form a quasi-equilibrium group by their own.

The same is true for many Asian and African countries. They lack opportunities to play higher rated players in Europe. Most simply lack the money to go to Europe. Thus, it's more difficult to attain higher ratings.>

* Le Quang Liem has entered the chat *

Also, you want to have it both ways. You emphasised that evaluating a player's playing strength should be through the study of their games, and yet say "Thus, it's more difficult to attain higher ratings." Perhaps studying more instead of being concerned with ratings should be their priority then?

I agree with you about the inequality of the routes to the candidates, but to their credit FIDE does have the World Cup- with the most candidate places- 3. 128 players is more than double when there were 3 interzonals. But all the same, the interzonals gave a greater opportunity to play a range of players across the world in a significant set number of games. So yes, I agree, but the problem is funding. What are the countries you are talking about doing to fund chess? The Chinese, as described above, took the bull by the horns and developed opportunities by organising events and inviting strong players from overseas, as well as developing systematic training, and even making chess a compulsory subject in school. There is an onus on a country to develop opportunities at home and support promising players. In the end though, players qualify for the candidates and a world championship match by winning games, whatever the system and their rating. And if they don't because they lose games, it's not because their rating is artificially low.

<"If the top 20 players were to suffer a serious brain injury and begin playing like patzers, but play no one else for the next decade, they would more or less retain their 2700s ratings, although they would be playing terrible patzerish chess."

This is called a "straw man argument"

Allow me to say it's not a strawman argument at all. It's a valid thought experiment that delves on the issue. With your reasoning ... you'd end up also calling most of Einstein's hypothetical thought experiments as "strawman arguments" since they are quite unrealistic in the sense they don't happen in reality. Strawman arguments simply veer off the topic entirely, and that's not the case here.>

Einstein's thought experiments? That veers off the topic of chess ratings entirely. So it's a strawman argument according to your definition. Also, you're wrong about Einstein's thought experiments- they were ways of looking at and evaluating physics that couldn't be done by standard experimental techniques at the time.

I'm not wrong wrong in saying that Einstein's arguments are NOT strawman arguments. If I may say so, saying that an argument isn't realistic makes it a strawman argument is wrong.

What's a strawman argument anyway? Perhaps we have a difference in defining it.

Take two debaters discussing a subject, topic, or issue. Debater 1 takes up a position. Debater 2 sets up another off tangent or different subject or topic or issue. And then refutes it. Then he claims to also have refuted Debater 1's position.

Debater 2 would have made a strawman argument. He would have completely veered off debating the subject or topic or issue at hand.

I haven't done that at all with my thought experiment. Your only criterion in debunking it is that it's unrealistic. But then again, so were Einstein's thought experiments if you would examine them more closely. Neither he nor I were engaged in strawman arguments in using hypothetical set ups that couldn't be realistic.

Famous examples that are unrealistic or don't exist in realty or can't be done in reality.

1. Einstein's elevator thought experiment showing the equivalence of an elevator accelerating at 1 Earth gravity in meters per second squared and Earth's actual gravity are equivalent. Indeed many popular physicists seemed to have assumed this in teaching the topic.

Yet there are no elevators that accelerate at 1G. It seems to occur only in planes and missiles. So the elevator experiment when extended to 1G is quite unrealistic.

2.I'd like to direct readers to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%...

This thought experiment by Einstein talks about measuring the mass of a box from which a single photon escapes.

That simply can't be done in reality.

3. Maxwell's Demon.

Also a quote from Wikipedia:

<Maxwell imagines one container divided into two parts, A and B. Both parts are filled with the same gas at equal temperatures and placed next to each other. Observing the molecules on both sides, an imaginary demon guards a trapdoor between the two parts. When a faster-than-average molecule from A flies towards the trapdoor, the demon opens it, and the molecule will fly from A to B. Likewise, when a slower-than-average molecule from B flies towards the trapdoor, the demon will let it pass from B to A. The average speed of the molecules in B will have increased while in A they will have slowed down on average. Since average molecular speed corresponds to temperature, the temperature decreases in A and increases in B, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. A heat engine operating between the thermal reservoirs A and B could extract useful work from this temperature difference.

The demon must allow molecules to pass in both directions in order to produce only a temperature difference; one-way passage only of faster-than-average molecules from A to B will cause higher temperature and pressure to develop on the B side.>

Obviously demons from thought experiments, even if imagined by the genius Maxwell, don't exist in reality.

Here's a personal experience of mine. When I was a child, our Chess Federation accepted an invitation by the Japanese Chess Federation to provide the strongest kid from age Bracket 12 years old and below to play the strongest Japanese chess players in the same age bracket. I was chosen.

So my Dad and I went to Japan. I played in and duly won the tournament, which weirdly enough also made me a Japanese Chess Champion (for age bracket 12 years old and below).

We received no cash prize. You can guess who financed me. My Dad paid for all our travel expenses. Imagine if we had gone to Europe or central Asia for me to play in such a tournament for kids. The cost would have been prohibitively high.

I gave up joining competitive chess events as soon as I got to high school. Early on, I realized there was no financial future for me in chess.

I wasn't even able to get an Elo rating, as with almost all local Philippine chess players. See below.

<The lowest Elo rating depends on the specific platform or governing body; on most online chess sites, the floor is 100, while the official minimum for the US Chess Federation (USCF) is also 100. The International Chess Federation (FIDE) allows players to fall below 1000 before being de-listed, though ratings of 100 or even 0 have been observed on some platforms.>

Just think of the average Elo rating of a quasi-equilibrium group from the Philippines. if we were given Elo ratings, we'd hit rock bottom.

<The lowest Elo rating depends on the specific platform or governing body; on most online chess sites, the floor is 100, while the official minimum for the US Chess Federation (USCF) is also 100. The International Chess Federation (FIDE) allows players to fall below 1000 before being de-listed, though ratings of 100 or even 0 have been observed on some platforms.>>

Before the 1990s, men could not even be published if their ratings were below 2200, and the floor for women was 1800. Informator produced the lists of rated players in appendices in the 1970s and eighties as I recall. The explosion of FIDE-rated players came about under the reign of Ilyumzhinov.

And

IM Adewumi versus IM Vaz

The event consists of 5 rounds of play.No resignations are allowed.A game must be played to checkmate,stalemate or flag.

The event starts at 17:00 CST (0.00 CEST),18:00 ET,3:30 IST The games will be played consecutively.

The games can be followed live at:

https://www.chess.com/events/2025-c...

The official website for the event is:

https://www.checkmateusaindia.com/

More information about the event is at:

That moment when @GMHikaru Nakamura turned around a lost position and checkmated World Champion Gukesh - picking up and throwing Gukesh's king to the crowd, celebrating the 5-0 win of Team USA over Team India!>

<Nakamura was just trying to get people's attention, but in doing so, he crossed the line from excitement to disrespect, especially considering it was the WC he was playing against>

I see how huge this has become everywhere, with Reddit deleting lots of repeated posts, and even FIDE CEO Sutovsky criticising Nakamura for his behaviour etc.