3 ms·

Another interesting tidbit is that the difference in rating between the top ranked player (Carlsen) and the World Champion (Anand) is the largest since Spassky-

Another interesting tidbit is that the difference in rating between the top ranked player (Carlsen) and the World Champion (Anand) is the largest since Spassky-Fischer in 1972, when Champion Spassky was rated 2660 and Fischer was rated 2785--a 125 point difference!

asdfologist 13y ago
At least some (if not all) of that can be explained by rating inflation. The same gap in ability translates to many more points today than 40 years ago.
- billforsternz 13y ago
  >The same gap in ability translates to many more points today than 40 years ago Not really. Ratings inflation means you can't compare the absolute values, but is much less noticeable on ratings differences. So 2660 + 4.7% = 2785 (125 points) in 1972. The equivalent today would be something like; 2750 + 4.7% = 2879 (129 points) The same gap in ability translates to only 4 more points. Actually even that modest difference should not arise from ratings inflation. That is because the Elo system is based on the idea that a given "gap in ability" is supposed to yield a constant Elo delta. An Elo delta of 100 points is supposed to translate to a 64% score for the stronger player, a delta of 200 points to 76% etc.
  - asdfologist 13y ago
    Interesting, that sounds reasonable, but two questions: 1. Is it certain that rating inflation is linear? 2. Is there actually any evidence that the constant Elo delta property actually holds even with inflation? It's well known that Elo is flawed, which is why people have been working on alternate rating systems...
    - billforsternz 13y ago
      I am not a ratings expert, just a (serious) player, chess programmer and amateur chess journalist. I am not sure ratings inflation even exists. If it does exist and you are talking about rating differences between world class players, then you are talking about small differences in big numbers and you are going to get a good approximation to linearity. But it's only approximate because in my previous example the linearity yielded 125 points v 129 points when the key underlying property of the system requires 125 points v 125 points. But unfortunately I don't know the answer to your question 2), I don't know how robust that property of the system is. Why do I say ratings inflation may not exist ? It is true that in Fischer's time there was one 2700+ player. Now there are 30 or so. That's the evidence for ratings inflation. But it seems likely that the top players are just better than they used to me. Maybe there really are 30 players today who can play at 1972 Bobby Fischer level.
- gautamnarula 13y ago
  One statistician has developed a system to compare players across time. I don't know enough about statistics to say if it's valid or not, but it's interesting to look at. Unfortunately, it hasn't been updated in almost a decade, since it says Carlsen's peak rating was 2556 in January 2005. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/ http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/
iends 13y ago
Anand is older and has less incentive to play in open tournaments when he gets a huge payout for defending his title every 1-2 years. He's playing just enough chess to stay sharp, and saving all his analysis/novelties/hard work for the big payout of the world championship. He simply doesn't care about rating.

asdfologist 13y ago

At least some (if not all) of that can be explained by rating inflation. The same gap in ability translates to many more points today than 40 years ago.

billforsternz 13y ago
>The same gap in ability translates to many more points today than 40 years ago Not really. Ratings inflation means you can't compare the absolute values, but is much less noticeable on ratings differences. So 2660 + 4.7% = 2785 (125 points) in 1972. The equivalent today would be something like; 2750 + 4.7% = 2879 (129 points) The same gap in ability translates to only 4 more points. Actually even that modest difference should not arise from ratings inflation. That is because the Elo system is based on the idea that a given "gap in ability" is supposed to yield a constant Elo delta. An Elo delta of 100 points is supposed to translate to a 64% score for the stronger player, a delta of 200 points to 76% etc.
- asdfologist 13y ago
  Interesting, that sounds reasonable, but two questions: 1. Is it certain that rating inflation is linear? 2. Is there actually any evidence that the constant Elo delta property actually holds even with inflation? It's well known that Elo is flawed, which is why people have been working on alternate rating systems...
  - billforsternz 13y ago
    I am not a ratings expert, just a (serious) player, chess programmer and amateur chess journalist. I am not sure ratings inflation even exists. If it does exist and you are talking about rating differences between world class players, then you are talking about small differences in big numbers and you are going to get a good approximation to linearity. But it's only approximate because in my previous example the linearity yielded 125 points v 129 points when the key underlying property of the system requires 125 points v 125 points. But unfortunately I don't know the answer to your question 2), I don't know how robust that property of the system is. Why do I say ratings inflation may not exist ? It is true that in Fischer's time there was one 2700+ player. Now there are 30 or so. That's the evidence for ratings inflation. But it seems likely that the top players are just better than they used to me. Maybe there really are 30 players today who can play at 1972 Bobby Fischer level.
gautamnarula 13y ago
One statistician has developed a system to compare players across time. I don't know enough about statistics to say if it's valid or not, but it's interesting to look at. Unfortunately, it hasn't been updated in almost a decade, since it says Carlsen's peak rating was 2556 in January 2005. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/ http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/

iends 13y ago

Anand is older and has less incentive to play in open tournaments when he gets a huge payout for defending his title every 1-2 years. He's playing just enough chess to stay sharp, and saving all his analysis/novelties/hard work for the big payout of the world championship. He simply doesn't care about rating.