Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 101
  1. #31
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    521
    Advisor: Dr. Christopher Wright IA - good to see a kiwi involved .
    IA Craig Hall

    www.chess.org.nz - Canterbury Chess Club
    http://respectrum.nz - Major sponsor

  2. #32
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,716
    Judit Polgar has just entered the list at 2700.7 in 46th place. But this shows how rapidly the number of players who are live 2700+ is increasing. When the Live Top List started in 2008 there were only 27 players rated 2700+.

  3. #33
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Judit Polgar has just entered the list at 2700.7 in 46th place. But this shows how rapidly the number of players who are live 2700+ is increasing. When the Live Top List started in 2008 there were only 27 players rated 2700+.
    I wonder if the larger number of players rated over 2700 is the result of FIDE ratings inflating or that humans are steadily becoming stronger at chess. I used to believe it was the former but now I strongly suspect the latter.

  4. #34
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Illingworth
    I wonder if the larger number of players rated over 2700 is the result of FIDE ratings inflating or that humans are steadily becoming stronger at chess. I used to believe it was the former but now I strongly suspect the latter.
    It may be a bit of both. Or it may be that humans are steadily becoming stronger at chess and the rating system is mirroring this, but humans becoming stronger is not the reason the rating system is doing so.

    One thing I wonder is this: suppose a rating system was stable under conditions of stable playing strength and then the average playing strength started improving: would the system actually pick this up? I think it would if the improvement came in the form of young players improving to a greater strength than players who were ageing, with the latter not improving. But if everyone improved at the same time it might not notice.

    There is a page I have linked to here before: http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/ which shows that apparent inflation at the top end started suddenly in late 1985-1986 after a period of stability. In the 2008 update to the piece Edwards addresses a number of explanations that were advanced (many of them also seen here).

  5. #35
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig_Hall
    Advisor: Dr. Christopher Wright IA - good to see a kiwi involved .
    Craig, to what is Chris the advisor? The site you linked to or FIDE Top List or ? I recall him and agree it is good to see a Kiwi involved.
    Last edited by Adamski; 10-08-2011 at 11:43 PM.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  6. #36
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,716
    He's advisor to the 2700chess site.

  7. #37
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    494
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Illingworth
    I wonder if the larger number of players rated over 2700 is the result of FIDE ratings inflating or that humans are steadily becoming stronger at chess. I used to believe it was the former but now I strongly suspect the latter.
    There's a recent paper by IM Ken Regan and Guy Haworth (PDF link) on this topic. I haven't studied the paper in any real detail and can't vouch for the soundness of the methodology. But basically they took games in the period 1976-1979 where both players' ratings were within 10 points of 2300, and got Rybka to say how good the moves were. Then they repeated this for players near 2400, 2500, 2600.

    Then they did the same for the period 1991-1994, (this time looking at 2700 ratings as well) and then for 2006-2009.

    The take-home result is that the quality of the moves at a given rating level has stayed approximately constant since 1976. i.e., that there are many more 2700+ players now is because humans are getting better at chess.

  8. #38
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,716
    Very interesting. There was a similar prior example comparing playing strength through time several years back but it was widely panned on the grounds that the program used wasn't strong enough to comment.

    My comment about the Regan and Haworth one: it is including moves from move 9 onwards. Very many games at the level studied would go much deeper into known theory than move 8.

    So it is quite possible that what the study is really picking up is that players these days have much better theoretical knowledge as a result of computer analysis and computer-tested databases weeding out inferior lines faster. It doesn't seem to prove they are playing fresh middlegame or endgame positions any better than before.

  9. #39
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,793
    Morozevich is now back in the top ten. Carlsen's current rating of 2825.8 places him well ahead of Anand (2811.0) and Aronian (2802.4).
    Grandmaster, FIDE Trainer, 2018-19 Australian Champion

    Do you love your chess as much as I do?

    What is your chess dream?

    Are you willing to do what it takes?

    Everyone who is an expert at something now...learned from another expert.

    Share your chess journey with me illingworthchess@gmail.com and Ill give you my 7-Page Basic Chess Training Plan, to direct your chess training and improvement.

  10. #40
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,716
    Aronian has gone to number 2 ahead of Anand.

  11. #41
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,716
    In the last few weeks I have frequently edited the opening post as Carlsen continues to set new highs since the introduction of "live ratings". He is not far shy now of Kasparov's career peak published rating of 2851, though the meaning of him eclipsing it (either as a published or "live" rating) may well be debated.

    Does anyone know what Kasparov's peak "live rating" would have been?

  12. #42
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    In the last few weeks I have frequently edited the opening post as Carlsen continues to set new highs since the introduction of "live ratings". He is not far shy now of Kasparov's career peak published rating of 2851, though the meaning of him eclipsing it (either as a published or "live" rating) may well be debated.

    Does anyone know what Kasparov's peak "live rating" would have been?
    Check out the periods between Jan 1999 - Jan 2001 (peak 2851) and Oct 2002 to April 2003 (peak 2847).

    The July 2000 period would seem to be the best bet when he played 35 games yet only dropped 2 rating points to 2849.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  13. #43
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Check out the periods between Jan 1999 - Jan 2001 (peak 2851) and Oct 2002 to April 2003 (peak 2847).

    The July 2000 period would seem to be the best bet when he played 35 games yet only dropped 2 rating points to 2849.
    In Oct 2002-April 2003 he peaked at 2847 following the Bled Olympiad and that seems to have been his highest live rating in that time.

    In the July 2000 period I am having trouble replicating the loss of 2 ratings points (I get a loss of 0.2) based on his events being Corus, Linares, a single game in the Israel Teams Champs and Sarajevo. In all he was +14=21-0 in this period.

    Anyway based on the data I have his live gain peaked at 5.8 points after beating Anand in round 4 of Linares. I don't know the rounding of the 2851 so it looks like in March 2000 Kasparov had a live rating of about 2857. I haven't looked at the other periods around that time yet.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 11-12-2011 at 06:44 PM.

  14. #44
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    In the July 2000 period I am having trouble replicating the loss of 2 ratings points (I get a loss of 0.2) based on his events being Corus, Linares, a single game in the Israel Teams Champs and Sarajevo. In all he was +14=21-0 in this period.
    Remember back then FIDE used the average of the opponents ratings on a per tournament basis and did not do individual game by game calculations.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  15. #45
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Remember back then FIDE used the average of the opponents ratings on a per tournament basis and did not do individual game by game calculations.
    That would explain the slight discrepancy I got. It also raises the question of whether a comparable "live rating" should be calculated using the formula as it existed at the time, or the formula that we use now. The answer will probably not be greatly different in this case. (I get about 2855 at the same point for the old method.)
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 11-12-2011 at 06:44 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Charles Robert Darwin 1809-1882
    By antichrist in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 04-09-2013, 02:18 PM
  2. Rapid and blitz rating lists
    By Banda in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 28-11-2011, 12:56 PM
  3. Rules of thread splitting- basic rights
    By firegoat7 in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: 23-02-2005, 08:37 AM
  4. Replies: 51
    Last Post: 20-02-2005, 02:04 PM
  5. no more lists till sunday at the earliest.
    By Garvinator in forum Mt Buller Chess
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-12-2004, 11:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •