3 ms·
I would also argue that there is a source of ELO deflation going on. As the top level players all get better, theory evolves, people generally play better chess
by trashtester 4y ago
I would also argue that there is a source of ELO deflation going on. As the top level players all get better, theory evolves, people generally play better chess.
A player with a rating of 2750 today might have beat Kasparov in his prime, simply because chess has evolved.
In a way, it's similar to sports. Plenty of people today might have beat Carl Lewis at 100m 30 years ago, but they would probably not be considered greater athletes.
So in order to beat 2900, it would help if several other players got rankings of 2800-2850, but only if they did so without actually playing much better chess.
Or he could just have a temporary lucky/confident streak, and gain 40 rating points in a few tournaments.
- soperj 4y ago> In a way, it's similar to sports. Plenty of people today might have beat Carl Lewis at 100m 30 years ago, but they would probably not be considered greater athletes. Same with Lance Armstrong...
- trashtester 4y agoI did remember Lance's drug use, but had forgotten about Carl's :)
- selectodude 4y agoCarl Lewis’ positive tests would now be marked as negative due to being under the threshold.
- epolanski 4y agoElo doesn't measure absolute but relative strength. It is not relevant whether the top players get better, what matters is their winrates against each other. The fact that chess has evolved is irrelevant because it applies to all players from carlsen to beginners everyone has the same tools.