Rating Inflation/Deflation

Date: 16 Mar 2007 12:50:40
From: samsloan
Subject: Rating Inflation/Deflation

I believe that most players reach their peak strength at age 30, and
then remain relatively stable for the next 20-30 years with their
ratings rarely going up or down more than 50 points.

Thus if you see an across-the-board drop of all players in the 30--50
age group of 100 to 150 points, you know that something is wrong.

On the other hand there is strong reason to believe that today's kids
are getting stronger because of the Internet.

For example, when I was a kid I had almost no chances to improve. I
went to the Lynchburg Chess Club once a week but the strongest player
there was below 1600. I became champion of my city at age 14 and from
then on all my opponents were weaker than I. My only chances to play
were about three times a year when traveled long distances to open
tournaments. I basically taught myself chess by ordering chess books
from Bushke and by playing postal chess.

Nowadays, any kid with a computer can play chess online with
grandmasters 24 hours a day. Opponents are always available. I am
certain that if I had had such opportunities when I was a kid I would
have become a good player.

Nowadays we have a 14 year old kid from Norway with a rating over 2700
who regularly beats the best players in the world. He has obviously
spent a lot of time on the Internet.

Sam Sloan

Date: 31 Mar 2007 11:11:49
From: Jonathan Berry
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

>
> > I'd like to see a current 2007 comparison between CFC, USCF, FQE and
> > FIDE ratings. When I did that in 2003, I found that the differences
> > were surprisingly small.
>
> I did find some stats on the CFC vs FIDE ratings on the CFC websitehttp://www.chess.ca/CFCvsFIDE.htm
>
> J.Lohner

Thanks for the link. As I suspected, the sumy is based on a rating
list from April 2004. The price of rating relativity is Eternal
Vigilance.

--
Jonathan Berry

Date: 31 Mar 2007 10:56:34
From: Jonathan Berry
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

Date: 31 Mar 2007 07:55:20
From: Jonathan Berry
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 20, 7:46 am, "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 19, 9:13 am, "Inconnux" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Canada is in the middle of this right now. CFC has started to

AFAIK, the Rating Boon was a one-time adjustment.

> > increase ratings based on how many games a person has played.

CFC for decades had a stable rating system (more stable over time than
the USCF's, for example) which included participation points, that is
points added for each game played. The CFC backed away from
participation points, the rating system went askew, and as an
emergency measure they did the Rating Boon, which very roughly
approximates what the participation points used to do, but
retroactively.

> > The CFC seems to think that Canadian ratings should mirror
> > the USCF ratings and not FIDE ratings.

Anthropomorphizing the CFC? I'm not aware that the CFC has such a
policy. Occam's razor would prefer the explanation given with the
Rating Boon, which was that adult but not old players were getting
their ratings hammered (and some of them getting disheartened) against
quickly-improving but still low rated juniors. I never saw that
demonstrated statistically, but the anecdotal evidence was tempting.

As a rough approximation, for the past 30 years or so, CFC ratings
have been somewhere between USCF and FIDE. I am not aware that there
was ever a conscious policy to favour one or the other.

> > Ive heard many
> > people complain of this at the last couple of Tournaments
> > ive been to.
>
> There has been much made here that Canadian ratings are somehow
> deflated vis-a-vis USCF. But given some comparisons, I don't see how,
> in fact looking at Pascal Charbonneau, Igor Zugic, Roman Pelts,
> Jonathan Berry, and other high rated players, their ratings are the
> same or lower in the USCF.

Aw, shucks. I'm not a high rated player like the other three
mentioned. But if you care to look, you'll find that my USCF rating
(2312) is higher than my CFC rating (2305), even after the CFC Rating
Boon. Not that I play in the US frequently enough to make my rating
say much about the current USCF rating methods.

My FQE rating is about 100 points higher than either. Doesn't say
anything about today's FQE system because I haven't played in Quebec
in a couple of decades.

The trouble with a lot of these discussions on r.g.c.* is that results
are quoted that are out of date; that the message is distorted as soon
as it gets "repeated"; and that measures are misunderstood. Ooops.
That's three. Three troubles. Nobody expected a SI.

>One lower-rated player on both sides of the
> border, Fred Kleist, is 1979 USCF and 2128 CFC.

He had a pretty amazing one-game-a-day 2003 Canadian Open. And he
doesn't play in Canada often. With cross-border
comparisons, there are very few who play significantly on both sides.
That's why anecdotal evidence does not mean much in CFC vs USCF rating
comparisons.

>Of course, such
> comparisons are dodgy with just a few players, and their activity
> levels are important; along with a ton of other things; one assumes
> that the CFC has done some sort of study to show exactly how or why
> this assumption was made?

That might depend upon whether you think that hand-waving can be a
"study".

I'd like to see a current 2007 comparison between CFC, USCF, FQE and
FIDE ratings. When I did that in 2003, I found that the differences
were surprisingly small.

>I don't see much, if any difference between
> the two, my CFC Active rating was about the same as my USCF Quick
> rating when I played in CFC-rated events.
>
> So where is the evidence that Canadian ratings somehow need to be
> inflated to be on a par with the US? Ken Sloan probably understands
> ratings better than anyone here, given his long experience and study
> of the Elo system, what does he have to say?
>
> > J.Lohnerhttp://www.chess.ca/memberinfo.asp?CFCN=144557
> > Chessworld.net "Inconnux"

--
Jonathan Berry

Date: 31 Mar 2007 17:49:39
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

"Jonathan Berry" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> > Canada is in the middle of this right now. CFC has started to
>
> AFAIK, the Rating Boon was a one-time adjustment.
>
Yes Ive posted the official reason for ratings increases
that was written in the latest Chess Canada magazine.

>> > increase ratings based on how many games a person has played.
>
> CFC for decades had a stable rating system (more stable over time than
> the USCF's, for example) which included participation points, that is
> points added for each game played. The CFC backed away from
> participation points, the rating system went askew, and as an
> emergency measure they did the Rating Boon, which very roughly
> approximates what the participation points used to do, but
> retroactively.
>

Was not aware of this, but Im pretty new to playing rated chess.

>> > The CFC seems to think that Canadian ratings should mirror
>> > the USCF ratings and not FIDE ratings.
>
> Anthropomorphizing the CFC? I'm not aware that the CFC has such a
> policy. Occam's razor would prefer the explanation given with the
> Rating Boon, which was that adult but not old players were getting
> their ratings hammered (and some of them getting disheartened) against
> quickly-improving but still low rated juniors. I never saw that
> demonstrated statistically, but the anecdotal evidence was tempting.
>
This was just one of the 'reasons' I was hearing at a couple of the
tournaments I participated in. There seems to be alot of
misunderstanding on why this is going on. Hopefully the latest
chess canada news section will help players understand the
real reasons the CFC is doing this.

> Aw, shucks. I'm not a high rated player like the other three
> mentioned. But if you care to look, you'll find that my USCF rating
> (2312) is higher than my CFC rating (2305), even after the CFC Rating
> Boon. Not that I play in the US frequently enough to make my rating
> say much about the current USCF rating methods.
>
But you are one of the BC Champs :), and you were able to hold your
own in the BAP system GM Slugfest.

> The trouble with a lot of these discussions on r.g.c.* is that results
> are quoted that are out of date; that the message is distorted as soon
> as it gets "repeated"; and that measures are misunderstood. Ooops.
> That's three. Three troubles. Nobody expected a SI.
>
lol welcome to Usenet

> I'd like to see a current 2007 comparison between CFC, USCF, FQE and
> FIDE ratings. When I did that in 2003, I found that the differences
> were surprisingly small.
>

I did find some stats on the CFC vs FIDE ratings on the CFC website
http://www.chess.ca/CFCvsFIDE.htm

J.Lohner

Date: 20 Mar 2007 08:46:34
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 19, 9:13 am, "Inconnux" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> Canada is in the middle of this right now. CFC has started to
> increase ratings based on how many games a person has played.
> The CFC seems to think that Canadian ratings should mirror
> the USCF ratings and not FIDE ratings. Ive heard many
> people complain of this at the last couple of Tournaments
> ive been to.

There has been much made here that Canadian ratings are somehow
deflated vis-a-vis USCF. But given some comparisons, I don't see how,
in fact looking at Pascal Charbonneau, Igor Zugic, Roman Pelts,
Jonathan Berry, and other high rated players, their ratings are the
same or lower in the USCF. One lower-rated player on both sides of the
border, Fred Kleist, is 1979 USCF and 2128 CFC. Of course, such
comparisons are dodgy with just a few players, and their activity
levels are important; along with a ton of other things; one assumes
that the CFC has done some sort of study to show exactly how or why
this assumption was made? I don't see much, if any difference between
the two, my CFC Active rating was about the same as my USCF Quick
rating when I played in CFC-rated events.

So where is the evidence that Canadian ratings somehow need to be
inflated to be on a par with the US? Ken Sloan probably understands
ratings better than anyone here, given his long experience and study
of the Elo system, what does he have to say?

>
> J.Lohnerhttp://www.chess.ca/memberinfo.asp?CFCN=144557
> Chessworld.net "Inconnux"

Date: 20 Mar 2007 21:11:42
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

> There has been much made here that Canadian ratings are somehow
> deflated vis-a-vis USCF. But given some comparisons, I don't see how,
> in fact looking at Pascal Charbonneau, Igor Zugic, Roman Pelts,
> Jonathan Berry, and other high rated players, their ratings are the
> same or lower in the USCF.

All of these people play internationally or atleast they play quite
a bit in the US as far as I know.

> So where is the evidence that Canadian ratings somehow need to be
> inflated to be on a par with the US? Ken Sloan probably understands
> ratings better than anyone here, given his long experience and study
> of the Elo system, what does he have to say?

I can't really say. All I know is that the CFC is raising peoples ratings
and the 'reason' is to be on par with the USCF ratings.

Date: 20 Mar 2007 10:31:10
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 20 2007 08:46:34 -0700, "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote:

>There has been much made here that Canadian ratings are somehow
>deflated vis-a-vis USCF. But given some comparisons, I don't see how,
>in fact looking at Pascal Charbonneau, Igor Zugic, Roman Pelts,
>Jonathan Berry, and other high rated players, their ratings are the
>same or lower in the USCF. One lower-rated player on both sides of the
>border, Fred Kleist, is 1979 USCF and 2128 CFC. Of course, such
>comparisons are dodgy with just a few players, and their activity
>levels are important; along with a ton of other things; one assumes
>that the CFC has done some sort of study to show exactly how or why
>this assumption was made? I don't see much, if any difference between
>the two, my CFC Active rating was about the same as my USCF Quick
>rating when I played in CFC-rated events.

I realize you imply this with your comment about activity levels, but
*when* the ratings were earned is also critical. For example, I
think Kleist had a very solid USCF Expert's rating for many years.

>So where is the evidence that Canadian ratings somehow need to be
>inflated to be on a par with the US? Ken Sloan probably understands
>ratings better than anyone here, given his long experience and study
>of the Elo system, what does he have to say?
>
>
>>
>> J.Lohnerhttp://www.chess.ca/memberinfo.asp?CFCN=144557
>> Chessworld.net "Inconnux"
>

Date: 18 Mar 2007 23:09:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 18, 8:46 pm, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> understand, and even then you generally don't get it. You can stop making
> references to the crappy free sites that you play at such as Yahoo or Pogo
> where it's easy to hack the interface and run an engine in real time. We're
> referring to a secure server such as playchess.com You've been told
> repeatedly. How many more times do you need to be told?

Look, Skippy: everyone knows that there is a *choice*
of time controls at most Web sites, and I expect this
would include Playchess. Now, whatever the cheater
is unable to handle he simply does not attempt, while
if he can handle, say, 5 3 or maybe 10 0 or something
around there, he plays it. The chess program is set up
to run on a separate computer, so it makes no difference
whatever if your server is "secure", as you call it. I know
this is difficult for a poor imbecile like you to understand,
Skippy, but knuckle down and try hard. Two separate
machines means there is no way for the "secure server"
to detect anything except by comparison of the moves
played to some standard, and this, too, is easily
defeated using stealth. I'll leave the details of that to
another lesson, since I don't want you to have a brain
hemorrhage or get severe migraines.

Way back when, there was a time when the strongest
chess computers in the world came in the form of stand-
alone machines, bearing names like Mephisto or what
have you. One of the chess players I knew was so
obsessed with this that he would order each new model
as it came out, asking all his acquaintances over to
"test" its strength. Naturally, this small sample did not
always suffice to satisfy his insatiable curiosity and thus
he would go online, under his own ID, and play each of
them against the best opposition he could find. If these
strong opponents insisted on blitz time controls, then
blitz it was. No "secure server" ever impeded his testing,
so far as I know. Others I knew were not nearly so
obsessed, but just the same they mimicked this idea
playing online under various IDs.

> > This only works out if the overall rating pools have
> > similar ratings, which is a neat trick when the USCF
> > giveth or taketh away bonus,
>
> Not true Help-Bitch. The USCF, and other national associations give and take
> away points in order to attimp to restore the normalllitee of the ratings when
> inflation/deflation, etc have an effect. As was explained to you already,
> the online rating will be very close to your OTB rating. Nobody said it will
> be EXACTLY what your OTB rating is. Did you look up or have someone explain
> what the word "CLOSE" means yet or are you still confused?

You are basically right, Skippy. But *over the years* the
USCF, for instance, has deliberately manipulated their
ratings pool up or back down, and this is what I was
referring to, not "normal" attempts to keep things smooth
and steady. Probably, you were not even born back then;
or perhaps you knew nothing of these follies on account
of living in Winterpeg, not the USA. Essentially, my barb
was directed specifically at the ridiculous USCF, at its
long history of tinkering with members' ratings like a cat
with a play toy.

-- coach bot

Date: 19 Mar 2007 14:13:17
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

> You are basically right, Skippy. But *over the years* the
> USCF, for instance, has deliberately manipulated their
> ratings pool up or back down, and this is what I was
> referring to, not "normal" attempts to keep things smooth
> and steady. Probably, you were not even born back then;
> or perhaps you knew nothing of these follies on account
> of living in Winterpeg, not the USA. Essentially, my barb
> was directed specifically at the ridiculous USCF, at its
> long history of tinkering with members' ratings like a cat
> with a play toy.
>
> -- coach bot

Canada is in the middle of this right now. CFC has started to
increase ratings based on how many games a person has played.
The CFC seems to think that Canadian ratings should mirror
the USCF ratings and not FIDE ratings. Ive heard many
people complain of this at the last couple of Tournaments
ive been to.

J.Lohner
http://www.chess.ca/memberinfo.asp?CFCN=144557
Chessworld.net "Inconnux"

Date: 19 Mar 2007 06:40:44
From: Good Moves are worth BEANS!
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 18, 8:46 pm, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> understand, and even then you generally don't get it. You can stop making
>> references to the crappy free sites that you play at such as Yahoo or
>> Pogo
>> where it's easy to hack the interface and run an engine in real time.
>> We're
>> referring to a secure server such as playchess.com You've been told
>> repeatedly. How many more times do you need to be told?
>
> everyone knows that there is a *choice*
> of time controls at most Web sites, and I expect this
> would include Playchess.

The retard who goes by the name "Help-Bitch" needs to be told AGAIN. What
part of SPEED CHESS didn't you comprehend? And playchess doesn't have alot
of retards like you who can't play chess without cheating, even in the
slower time controls. Over 99% of the players there play a fair and honest
game. I know you've never played there because the competition is too strong
for you and you can't afford the membership fees, so you're thinking in
terms of a site like Yahoo or Pogo and assuming that all online chess sites
are similiar. How could you be this incredibly stupid that you still can't
understand this concept? How many times were you dropped on your melon head
as a child to become this dumb?

> Way back when, there was a time when the strongest
> chess computers in the world came in the form of stand-
> alone machines, bearing names like Mephisto or what
> have you. One of the chess players I knew was so
> obsessed with this that he would order each new model
> as it came out, asking all his acquaintances over to
> "test" its strength.

LOL, Could you find a more obvious example of PROJECTION? As I said, I know
you're a pathetic little moron that can't play chess above the 1600 level
without cheating, so you're the type of guy that will do things such as
getting computer assistance, etc, but you're not representative of the
majority. Also, the fact that you don't play on playchess.com but only on
the crappy free servers is a confirmation of my point.

JMR

Date: 18 Mar 2007 22:43:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 18, 8:26 pm, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> >> >> Lastly, there is the small matter of mouse,
> >> >>typing, or touch-pad speed differences among the
> >> >>machines themselves to factor in.

> Help Bitch, did nobody explain to your dumb ass that you can plug a mouse
> into the usb port of your laptop and voila, you now have a mouse?

Yes, yes, I knew this. The trouble here is that I am
using my "laptop" computer just where it says: (on a
small metal tray) on my lap; there is no room for a
mouse pad and mouse. Besides this, I mainly use
the computer for reading, not playing chess, and
when I do play chess these days it is not blitz or
bullet, but real chess, where you have to think.

Just the same, if I ever do decide to play blitz chess
on this computer I will consider finding a place where
I would have the room for a USB mouse.

> You're right, I made the "silly assumption" that even a demonstrated
> imbecile such as yourself could figure this out.

It's not so much a matter of figuring t out as it is
one of being familiar with computers in general, and
having seen these USB mice in stores, Skippy.

> I have a laptop (and two desktops) and
> play on my laptop all the time. The touchpad is ok for basic stuff and web
> surfing.

Precisely, Skippy.

> For time-sensitive activities you simply plug a mouse in. There's
> no problem here.

Of course not, providing you are living at home with
your mom and you place the laptop not on your lap,
but on a table where there's lots of room. But I'm
all grown up, Skippy, and oddly enough access the
internet through wireless services where there are
no tables. I admit, this is odd, and I've written
about this before in trying to help Sanny. I also
have a rather odd problem with battery power -- one
which would be irrelevant to most people but which
nevertheless affects my situation at present. In sum,
no way am I going to think about optimizing for blitz
chess right now, since I have far more important
things to do. I used to play online blitz chess for
many hours at a time -- a real addict I was. Now I
prefer the somewhat slower chess, where depth and
subtlety enter more into the play.

-- help bot

Date: 19 Mar 2007 06:31:56
From: Good Moves are worth BEANS!
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 18, 8:26 pm, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> >> Lastly, there is the small matter of mouse,
>> >> >>typing, or touch-pad speed differences among the
>> >> >>machines themselves to factor in.
>
>> Help Bitch, did nobody explain to your dumb ass that you can plug a mouse
>> into the usb port of your laptop and voila, you now have a mouse?
>
> Yes, yes, I knew this. The trouble here is that I am
> using my "laptop" computer just where it says: (on a
> small metal tray) on my lap; there is no room for a
> mouse pad and mouse.

Then it's your fault for being too fucking stupid to play the game under
proper conditions. Most people have enough intelligence to set up a proper
interface.

> when I do play chess these days it is not blitz or
> bullet, but real chess, where you have to think.

This is a typical comment from a weak, low rated imbecile like yourself who
cannot play good chess at any time control. I'm an expert at SLOW, OTB time
controls and am over 400 points higher rated than you in this form of the
game, so apparently your ability to "think" is quite limited. Blitz and
bullet chess are also 100% skill and require alot of thinking. I could take
5 minutes against a "B", "C" class player like you and win easily even if
you had 3 hours for your moves. I've actually done this already for small
wagers and won every game. The interesting thing I found is that even though
I only have 5 minutes for all my moves, the more time I give to my opponent
the more it favours me.

>> You're right, I made the "silly assumption" that even a demonstrated
>> imbecile such as yourself could figure this out.
>
> It's not so much a matter of figuring t out as it is
> one of being familiar with computers in general, and
> having seen these USB mice in stores

LMAO! It's truly hard to believe somebody could be this stupid!! You
couldn't figure this out on your own?
How incredibly stupid do you have to be to not be able to figure out how to
plug an external mouse into your laptop? And why does an idiot like you
spend so much time trolling about in chess usenet groups?

Date: 17 Mar 2007 21:08:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 17, 9:47 pm, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> >> Lastly, there is the small matter of mouse,
> >>typing, or touch-pad speed differences among the
> >>machines themselves to factor in. I have known
> >>players who claim that typing the (blitz or bullet)
> >>moves is significantly faster than using a mouse,
> >>or who even use a third party to do this for them
> >>while they call out the moves verbally! Obviously,
> >>this makes any closely-contested games depend
> >>all too heavily on secondary issues, rather than
> >>what we normally consider to be real chess skill.
> >>It also seems to give the younger players a big
> >>edge over their older, slower-reflexed rivals.
>
> > For this reason, players with a bullet rating over 100 points higher
> > than their blitz rating go on my "ignore" list. It's also why I have
> > pretty much settled on 3.2 (three minute game with a 2 second per move
> > increment). It's fast enough to discourage alternate computer
> > cheating and slow enough to make mouse skill less decisive.
>
> There's really no such thing as "mouse-skill". I'm assuming you're using a
> decent, wired mouse thats comfortable, doesn't skip or have a mind of it's
> own (logitech are known for this) and that you have it set to an
> appropriate speed. Beyond that, it's about the judicious use of premove and
> in making good decisions quickly.

You seem very quick to make silly assumptions,
Skippy.

These days I am using a notebook computer, which
has no mouse, no trackball, and no mouse-pad. What
the boys at Dell and HP and Apple do is this: they
incorporate a new thingie called a touch-pad, and you
use your finger to manipulate the cursor. Here's the
rub: although this keeps from having annoying wires or
external devices get in the way of easy portability, the
touch-pad has a serious drawback of registering any
unintentional tap exactly as though it were a deliberate
mouse-click! Yuck. As you already mentioned, there
are also problems with mice which don't always seem
to work exactly as they're supposed to.

Just to put this thing into somewhat better perspective,
consider this: both Taylor Kingston and I have "lost"
games at GetClub where, apparently, the "resign" button
registered a click on his site. Imagine that -- resigning
against Sanny's program, and not even three Queens
down yet!

I'm glad to hear you have mastered tricky items like
"pre-move" and such, especially in view of your serious
difficulties with language and thinking. Well done.

> > As an experiment, I played quite a few 3.0 games and found the rate of
> > lag cheating unacceptably high.
>
> Lag cheating does occur. After you iggy all the usual suspects who do this
> you won't notice it that often, and the vast majority of the cheaters are
> under 2000, so if you set your formula above that you won't have to deal
> with them.

And now Skippy freely admits that there *are* cheaters
on his Web site; wonders never cease with this clown.

-- help bot

Date: 19 Mar 2007 00:26:26
From: Good Moves are worth BEANS!
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 17, 9:47 pm, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Lastly, there is the small matter of mouse,
>> >>typing, or touch-pad speed differences among the
>> >>machines themselves to factor in. I have known
>> >>players who claim that typing the (blitz or bullet)
>> >>moves is significantly faster than using a mouse,
>> >>or who even use a third party to do this for them
>> >>while they call out the moves verbally! Obviously,
>> >>this makes any closely-contested games depend
>> >>all too heavily on secondary issues, rather than
>> >>what we normally consider to be real chess skill.
>> >>It also seems to give the younger players a big
>> >>edge over their older, slower-reflexed rivals.
>>
>> > For this reason, players with a bullet rating over 100 points higher
>> > than their blitz rating go on my "ignore" list. It's also why I have
>> > pretty much settled on 3.2 (three minute game with a 2 second per move
>> > increment). It's fast enough to discourage alternate computer
>> > cheating and slow enough to make mouse skill less decisive.
>>
>> There's really no such thing as "mouse-skill". I'm assuming you're using
>> a
>> decent, wired mouse thats comfortable, doesn't skip or have a mind of
>> it's
>> own (logitech are known for this) and that you have it set to an
>> appropriate speed. Beyond that, it's about the judicious use of premove
>> and
>> in making good decisions quickly.
>
> You seem very quick to make silly assumptions,
> Skippy.
>
> These days I am using a notebook computer, which
> has no mouse,

Help Bitch, did nobody explain to your dumb ass that you can plug a mouse
into the usb port of your laptop and voila, you now have a mouse? You're
right, I made the "silly assumption" that even a demonstrated imbecile such
as yourself could figure this out. I have a laptop (and two desktops) and
play on my laptop all the time. The touchpad is ok for basic stuff and web
surfing. For time-sensitive activities you simply plug a mouse in. There's
no problem here.

JMR

Date: 17 Mar 2007 20:55:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 17, 9:30 pm, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> The only thing obvious here Help-Bitch, is that you're a very dumb guy who
> makes alot
> of assumptions and has no capacity for reasoning. For starters,
> you're assuming that we're talking about playing on the crappy free chess
> servers that you're used to playing on where cheating with a program is
> possible. If you had the ability to read and understand English at a level
> beyond elementary school, you would have understood that we were talking
> about the playchess.com server where it's not possible to "fire up an
> engine" for speed games.

Poor, poor imbecile. Hint: it takes *two* machines or
another, hopefully stronger player, but cheating is not
at all difficult on any server. Those arrogant admins
may have you buffaloed, but not everyone is quite as
dumb and naive as you, Skippy.

> Additionally, I wouldn't expect a mentally-defective imbecile like yourself
> to understand this concept Help-Bitch, but on average, the biases, such as
> playing on overrated player one game and an underrated player a different
> game tend to balance out. Net result: Your online rating will be very close
> to your OTB rating at similiar time controls.

This only works out if the overall rating pools have
similar ratings, which is a neat trick when the USCF
giveth or taketh away bonus, feedback, etc., willy
nilly. It could be done with FIDE, but there would
have to be an active attempt to correlate the two pools
so they match up. Presumably, the established
players would not take kindly to having their numbers
toyed with, so the tinkering would have to focus on
something subtle.

It really is amazing how easily the masses are
talked into believing their online ratings have great
merit; how willingly they are led to believe that
cheating is impossible, and so forth.

-- coach bot

Date: 19 Mar 2007 00:46:14
From: Good Moves are worth BEANS!
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 17, 9:30 pm, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The only thing obvious here Help-Bitch, is that you're a very dumb guy
>> who
>> makes alot
>> of assumptions and has no capacity for reasoning. For starters,
>> you're assuming that we're talking about playing on the crappy free chess
>> servers that you're used to playing on where cheating with a program is
>> possible. If you had the ability to read and understand English at a
>> level
>> beyond elementary school, you would have understood that we were talking
>> about the playchess.com server where it's not possible to "fire up an
>> engine" for speed games.
>
> Hint: it takes *two* machines

You retarded little cretin....what part of "SPEED GAMES" didn't enter into
your thick skull. This is the reason that fast speed games such as bullet
are so popular on the internet. On a secure server such as playchess.com
there is no way to cheat. This has all been explained to you repeatedly, but
you still somehow can't understand.

Help-Bitch, you are, bar-none, the DUMBEST cocksucker i've come across in a
long time. You need everything explained to you in a way a four year old can
understand, and even then you generally don't get it. You can stop making
references to the crappy free sites that you play at such as Yahoo or Pogo
where it's easy to hack the interface and run an engine in real time. We're
referring to a secure server such as playchess.com You've been told
repeatedly. How many more times do you need to be told?

>
>> Additionally, I wouldn't expect a mentally-defective imbecile like
>> yourself
>> to understand this concept Help-Bitch, but on average, the biases, such
>> as
>> playing on overrated player one game and an underrated player a different
>> game tend to balance out. Net result: Your online rating will be very
>> close
>> to your OTB rating at similiar time controls.
>
> This only works out if the overall rating pools have
> similar ratings, which is a neat trick when the USCF
> giveth or taketh away bonus,

Not true Help-Bitch. The USCF, and other national associations give and take
away points in order to attemp to restore the normallity of the ratings when
inflation/deflation, etc have an effect. As was explained to you already,
the online rating will be very close to your OTB rating. Nobody said it will
be EXACTLY what your OTB rating is. Did you look up or have someone explain
what the word "CLOSE" means yet or are you still confused?

JMR

Date: 17 Mar 2007 20:43:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 17, 8:26 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Many times I have seen people talk about how they
> >sometimes (or even often) allow others to play under
> >their handle at rated chess online, and I have also
> >witnessed several cases of this first hand. I have also
> >seen players who wanted to "teach someone a lesson"
> >who fired up a chess playing program, to deal a blow
> >to some fellow's ego -- someone who had ticked them
> >off. Obviously, it is much harder to do this sort of
> >substitution OTB, so the online ratings are far less
> >meaningful than an OTB rating.
>
> Good points, although until proven otherwise, I'd think this
> relatively rare.

Perhaps you should think more carefully; this is not
just some unsupported claim, but a retelling of what
has been *observed* in practice. In addition to my own
experiences, there are innumerable comments strewn
throughout rgc postings by others which confirm this.

One recent example was in response to an attack
on someone by Mr. Repa, who ridiculed another of the
many claimants to chess fame for having a slightly
lower online rating than his own. Now, even though
no one takes Mr. Repa seriously, it was patiently
explained that the "ad-hominee" has allowed his son
and friends to play under his ID, and these boys were
about 10 years of age! This was typical, as all the
online players I knew allowed others to use their
account to play with a member ID, to avoid being
shunned as an "unregistered" (presumed) weakie.
Unregistered players have trouble getting decent
opposition -- or at least they used to. In fact, not
one of the many players I knew ever said "no! You
can't use my ID because that would be unethical."
I'm not arguing that this is right, just relating the
facts of my own experience to add to all the others
which can easily be found in rgc postings along the
same vein. I can't recall anyone ever posting that
*nobody* ever played under their account, although
it may have happened just the same.

> Playchess maintains three ratings: slow, blitz and bullet.

Yes, I keep hearing about this Playchess. But this
was not around back then. Back when I played it
was ICC and other sites, and the top-rated players
were rather protective of their ratings, flatly refusing to
give an unrated or new player a shot at them. On top
of that, the very idea of "testing" a recently purchased
chess program is defeated unless you can find decent
opposition, and that means the top-rated players. In
fact, the thesis works best if you conduct these tests
against players who have known USCF or FIDE ratings.

> And there are many players with a w..i..d..e difference between their ratings at
> these three modes.

Hint: typical computer cheats prefer to savor the glory
by taking it slow and easy, so they don't muck things
up via operator error. (Okay, I did not know enough
computer cheaters to make such an assessment.) : >D

> > Lastly, there is the small matter of mouse,
> >typing, or touch-pad speed differences among the
> >machines themselves to factor in. I have known
> >players who claim that typing the (blitz or bullet)
> >moves is significantly faster than using a mouse,
> >or who even use a third party to do this for them
> >while they call out the moves verbally! Obviously,
> >this makes any closely-contested games depend
> >all too heavily on secondary issues, rather than
> >what we normally consider to be real chess skill.
> >It also seems to give the younger players a big
> >edge over their older, slower-reflexed rivals.
>
> For this reason, players with a bullet rating over 100 points higher
> than their blitz rating go on my "ignore" list. It's also why I have
> pretty much settled on 3.2 (three minute game with a 2 second per move
> increment).

That is precisely the time control that I used to prefer.

> It's fast enough to discourage alternate computer
> cheating and slow enough to make mouse skill less decisive.

And also to eliminate the strategy of winning on
time by quickly shifting wood in a random endgame.

> As an experiment, I played quite a few 3.0 games and found the rate of
> lag cheating unacceptably high. Doesn't seem to be as much at 3.2,
> although it does take longer to get an opponent sometimes.

I noticed that certain favored players had a big time
advantage in terms of this lag -- occasionally finding
one who gained large time advantages despite my
moving instantly. Later, I read complaints by others
that a few of the admins were abusing their special
privileges in this and several other ways, and some
of these complaints came from other admins!

Maybe I will give this Playchess.com a try.

-- help bot

Date: 17 Mar 2007 16:42:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

> >> >Rating on-line is not the most objective criteria. It is mainly about
> >> >blitzes and bullets and does not say much about real OTB strength also
> >> >in OTB blitzes.
> >> Jerzy, are you saying there's not much correlation between OTB Blitz
> >> and online Blitz ? If so, why is this? I would think strength at one
> >> would correlate pretty closely with strength at the other, given that
> >> it takes a while to get used to mouse techniques.

> >Mike, I have already written about correlation between on-line and OTB
> >ratings. Of course I cannot give you exact numbers. There should be
> >done statistical work among population of chessplayers who play chess
> >both on-line and OTB.
> >>From my observations the better a player is in OTB chess the better
> >the player is in on-line chess. However the rule has its exceptions as
> >well :-)
>
> FWIW, I think the online Playchess Blitz ratings over time probably
> correlate pretty closely to OTB Blitz ratings, but the online ratings
> are less stable. Why is this? Because, we all have our hot and cold
> streaks, days when we play well and days when concentration flags for
> one reason or another. If you're playing rated OTB Blitz, the number
> of games you can play while in a streak is constrained by the length
> of whatever event in which you're playing. In online Blitz, you can
> keep playing and playing. When you're hot, the rating goes way up.
> When you're cold, it goes way down.
>
> I see a few players whose Playchess ratings seem pretty stable over
> time, but many who experience up and down swings of several hundred
> points. I think this is relatively rare OTB.
>
> I'd be interested in other players' perspectives on this.

Many times I have seen people talk about how they
sometimes (or even often) allow others to play under
their handle at rated chess online, and I have also
witnessed several cases of this first hand. I have also
seen players who wanted to "teach someone a lesson"
who fired up a chess playing program, to deal a blow
to some fellow's ego -- someone who had ticked them
off. Obviously, it is much harder to do this sort of
substitution OTB, so the online ratings are far less
meaningful than an OTB rating.

This also would explain (in part) why the online
ratings are more volatile, even apart from any added
playing activity as described far above.

But added to this is another aspect of online play:
often it can be hard to find an opponent unless you
are willing to play fast time controls, such as blitz.
Because of this, even a player who much prefers
slower chess can be forced into playing blitz or
even bullet chess, where he fails miserably --
relative to his OTB skill level, that is.

Lastly, there is the small matter of mouse,
typing, or touch-pad speed differences among the
machines themselves to factor in. I have known
players who claim that typing the (blitz or bullet)
moves is significantly faster than using a mouse,
or who even use a third party to do this for them
while they call out the moves verbally! Obviously,
this makes any closely-contested games depend
all too heavily on secondary issues, rather than
what we normally consider to be real chess skill.
It also seems to give the younger players a big
edge over their older, slower-reflexed rivals.

-- help bot

Date: 18 Mar 2007 01:30:47
From: Good Moves are worth BEANS!
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> >> >Rating on-line is not the most objective criteria. It is mainly about
>> >> >blitzes and bullets and does not say much about real OTB strength
>> >> >also
>> >> >in OTB blitzes.
>> >> Jerzy, are you saying there's not much correlation between OTB Blitz
>> >> and online Blitz ? If so, why is this? I would think strength at one
>> >> would correlate pretty closely with strength at the other, given that
>> >> it takes a while to get used to mouse techniques.
>
>> >Mike, I have already written about correlation between on-line and OTB
>> >ratings. Of course I cannot give you exact numbers. There should be
>> >done statistical work among population of chessplayers who play chess
>> >both on-line and OTB.
>> >>From my observations the better a player is in OTB chess the better
>> >the player is in on-line chess. However the rule has its exceptions as
>> >well :-)
>>
>> FWIW, I think the online Playchess Blitz ratings over time probably
>> correlate pretty closely to OTB Blitz ratings, but the online ratings
>> are less stable. Why is this? Because, we all have our hot and cold
>> streaks, days when we play well and days when concentration flags for
>> one reason or another. If you're playing rated OTB Blitz, the number
>> of games you can play while in a streak is constrained by the length
>> of whatever event in which you're playing. In online Blitz, you can
>> keep playing and playing. When you're hot, the rating goes way up.
>> When you're cold, it goes way down.
>>
>> I see a few players whose Playchess ratings seem pretty stable over
>> time, but many who experience up and down swings of several hundred
>> points. I think this is relatively rare OTB.
>>
>> I'd be interested in other players' perspectives on this.
>
> Many times I have seen people talk about how they
> sometimes (or even often) allow others to play under
> their handle at rated chess online, and I have also
> witnessed several cases of this first hand. I have also
> seen players who wanted to "teach someone a lesson"
> who fired up a chess playing program, to deal a blow
> to some fellow's ego -- someone who had ticked them
> off. Obviously, it is much harder to do this sort of
> substitution OTB, so the online ratings are far less
> meaningful than an OTB rating.

The only thing obvious here Help-Bitch, is that you're a very dumb guy who
makes alot of assumptions and has no capacity for reasoning. For starters,
you're assuming that we're talking about playing on the crappy free chess
servers that you're used to playing on where cheating with a program is
possible. If you had the ability to read and understand English at a level
beyond elementary school, you would have understood that we were talking
about the playchess.com server where it's not possible to "fire up an
engine" for speed games.

Additionally, I wouldn't expect a mentally-defective imbecile like yourself
to understand this concept Help-Bitch, but on average, the biases, such as
playing on overrated player one game and an underrated player a different
game tend to balance out. Net result: Your online rating will be very close
to your OTB rating at similiar time controls.

JMR

Date: 17 Mar 2007 17:26:28
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 17 2007 16:42:08 -0700, "help bot" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> I see a few players whose Playchess ratings seem pretty stable over
>> time, but many who experience up and down swings of several hundred
>> points. I think this is relatively rare OTB.

>> I'd be interested in other players' perspectives on this.

> Many times I have seen people talk about how they
>sometimes (or even often) allow others to play under
>their handle at rated chess online, and I have also
>witnessed several cases of this first hand. I have also
>seen players who wanted to "teach someone a lesson"
>who fired up a chess playing program, to deal a blow
>to some fellow's ego -- someone who had ticked them
>off. Obviously, it is much harder to do this sort of
>substitution OTB, so the online ratings are far less
>meaningful than an OTB rating.

Good points, although until proven otherwise, I'd think this
relatively rare.

> This also would explain (in part) why the online
>ratings are more volatile, even apart from any added
>playing activity as described far above.

> But added to this is another aspect of online play:
>often it can be hard to find an opponent unless you
>are willing to play fast time controls, such as blitz.
>Because of this, even a player who much prefers
>slower chess can be forced into playing blitz or
>even bullet chess, where he fails miserably --
>relative to his OTB skill level, that is.

Playchess maintains three ratings: slow, blitz and bullet. And there
are many players with a w..i..d..e difference between their ratings at
these three modes.

> Lastly, there is the small matter of mouse,
>typing, or touch-pad speed differences among the
>machines themselves to factor in. I have known
>players who claim that typing the (blitz or bullet)
>moves is significantly faster than using a mouse,
>or who even use a third party to do this for them
>while they call out the moves verbally! Obviously,
>this makes any closely-contested games depend
>all too heavily on secondary issues, rather than
>what we normally consider to be real chess skill.
>It also seems to give the younger players a big
>edge over their older, slower-reflexed rivals.

For this reason, players with a bullet rating over 100 points higher
than their blitz rating go on my "ignore" list. It's also why I have
pretty much settled on 3.2 (three minute game with a 2 second per move
increment). It's fast enough to discourage alternate computer
cheating and slow enough to make mouse skill less decisive.

As an experiment, I played quite a few 3.0 games and found the rate of
lag cheating unacceptably high. Doesn't seem to be as much at 3.2,
although it does take longer to get an opponent sometimes.

> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
>

Date: 18 Mar 2007 01:47:30
From: Good Moves are worth BEANS!
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 17 2007 16:42:08 -0700, "help bot" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> I see a few players whose Playchess ratings seem pretty stable over
>>> time, but many who experience up and down swings of several hundred
>>> points. I think this is relatively rare OTB.
>
>>> I'd be interested in other players' perspectives on this.
>
>> Many times I have seen people talk about how they
>>sometimes (or even often) allow others to play under
>>their handle at rated chess online, and I have also
>>witnessed several cases of this first hand. I have also
>>seen players who wanted to "teach someone a lesson"
>>who fired up a chess playing program, to deal a blow
>>to some fellow's ego -- someone who had ticked them
>>off. Obviously, it is much harder to do this sort of
>>substitution OTB, so the online ratings are far less
>>meaningful than an OTB rating.
>
> Good points, although until proven otherwise, I'd think this
> relatively rare.

Not only is it rare, but the way an elo chess rating works is that even if
you throw some games, for whatever reason, and take a rating dive, it will,
at best, be very temporary. Your rating will quickly get back to a normal
level. What I think is the biggest factor in this whole issue is honesty and
objectivity. I believe that the majority of chess players, especially those
at the lower skill levels, do not have either the ability, or the desire, to
assess their skill level in an honest and unbiased way. They will make
excuses and say nonsensical things such as "blitz chess isn't chess" and
"online chess isn't real", etc. to rationalize their poor performances.
You'll find that even when you beat these people at slower time controls and
OTB they'll come up with some new excuses to try to discredit you. In the
end it's the result that tell the tale.

>
>> This also would explain (in part) why the online
>>ratings are more volatile, even apart from any added
>>playing activity as described far above.
>
>> But added to this is another aspect of online play:
>>often it can be hard to find an opponent unless you
>>are willing to play fast time controls, such as blitz.
>>Because of this, even a player who much prefers
>>slower chess can be forced into playing blitz or
>>even bullet chess, where he fails miserably --
>>relative to his OTB skill level, that is.
>
> Playchess maintains three ratings: slow, blitz and bullet. And there
> are many players with a w..i..d..e difference between their ratings at
> these three modes.
>
>> Lastly, there is the small matter of mouse,
>>typing, or touch-pad speed differences among the
>>machines themselves to factor in. I have known
>>players who claim that typing the (blitz or bullet)
>>moves is significantly faster than using a mouse,
>>or who even use a third party to do this for them
>>while they call out the moves verbally! Obviously,
>>this makes any closely-contested games depend
>>all too heavily on secondary issues, rather than
>>what we normally consider to be real chess skill.
>>It also seems to give the younger players a big
>>edge over their older, slower-reflexed rivals.
>
> For this reason, players with a bullet rating over 100 points higher
> than their blitz rating go on my "ignore" list. It's also why I have
> pretty much settled on 3.2 (three minute game with a 2 second per move
> increment). It's fast enough to discourage alternate computer
> cheating and slow enough to make mouse skill less decisive.

There's really no such thing as "mouse-skill". I'm assuming you're using a
decent, wired mouse thats comfortable, doesn't skip or have a mind of it's
own (logitech are known for this) and that you have it set to an
appropriate speed. Beyond that, it's about the judicious use of premove and
in making good decisions quickly.

> As an experiment, I played quite a few 3.0 games and found the rate of
> lag cheating unacceptably high.

Lag cheating does occur. After you iggy all the usual suspects who do this
you won't notice it that often, and the vast majority of the cheaters are
under 2000, so if you set your formula above that you won't have to deal
with them.

JMR

Date: 17 Mar 2007 14:17:37
From: Jerzy
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 17 , 20:15, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> >>From my observations the better a player is in OTB chess the better
> >the player is in on-line chess. However the rule has its exceptions as
> >well :-)
>
> FWIW, I think the online Playchess Blitz ratings over time probably
> correlate pretty closely to OTB Blitz ratings, but the online ratings
> are less stable. Why is this? Because, we all have our hot and cold
> streaks, days when we play well and days when concentration flags for
> one reason or another. If you're playing rated OTB Blitz, the number
> of games you can play while in a streak is constrained by the length
> of whatever event in which you're playing. In online Blitz, you can
> keep playing and playing. When you're hot, the rating goes way up.
> When you're cold, it goes way down.

On-line ratings are less stable because of the speed of the games. You
can play a lot of more on-line than OTB games.

>
> I see a few players whose Playchess ratings seem pretty stable over
> time, but many who experience up and down swings of several hundred
> points. I think this is relatively rare OTB.
>
> I'd be interested in other players' perspectives on this.

There are many streaks of losses (or wins) during on-line play. When
you lose you should take a break. Playing on-line can be addictive.
Don`t forget about your daily routines. :-)

Date: 17 Mar 2007 14:11:02
From: Jerzy
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 17 , 17:19, "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Rating on-line is not the most objective criteria. It is mainly about
> > blitzes and bullets and does not say much about real OTB strength also
> > in OTB blitzes.
>
> Jerzy, you must be the only person who is not aware that the 14-year-
> old kid who beats the best players in the world is Magnus Carlsen, who
> just finished beating Topalov, the number one rated player in the
> world.

Sam, soon the number one in Fide rating list will be Vishy Anand.

>
> Carlsen did not beat Topalov in an on-line blitz game. He beat him in
> an over-the-board tournament game at standard time controls.

Of course but we are talking here why youngsters become better and
better at chess nowadays.

Date: 17 Mar 2007 09:19:58
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 17, 11:25 am, "Jerzy" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 16 , 20:50, "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I believe that most players reach their peak strength at age 30, and
> > then remain relatively stable for the next 20-30 years with their
> > ratings rarely going up or down more than 50 points.
>
> Yes, it is about simple biology and the process of aging, however the
> rule has its exceptions.
>
> [...]
>
> > Nowadays, any kid with a computer can play chess online with
> > grandmasters 24 hours a day. Opponents are always available. I am
> > certain that if I had had such opportunities when I was a kid I would
> > have become a good player.
>
> Sam, today kiddies have not only internet in hand but also
> chessprograms and chess coaches who train them heavily for reasonable
> prices and salaries.
>
> And they start playing much earlier then itt was several decades
> before.
>
>
>
> > Nowadays we have a 14 year old kid from Norway with a rating over 2700
> > who regularly beats the best players in the world. He has obviously
> > spent a lot of time on the Internet.
>
> Rating on-line is not the most objective criteria. It is mainly about
> blitzes and bullets and does not say much about real OTB strength also
> in OTB blitzes.

Jerzy, you must be the only person who is not aware that the 14-year-
old kid who beats the best players in the world is Magnus Carlsen, who
just finished beating Topalov, the number one rated player in the
world.

Carlsen did not beat Topalov in an on-line blitz game. He beat him in
an over-the-board tournament game at standard time controls.

Sam Sloan

Date: 17 Mar 2007 09:08:45
From: Jerzy
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 17 , 16:51, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> >Rating on-line is not the most objective criteria. It is mainly about
> >blitzes and bullets and does not say much about real OTB strength also
> >in OTB blitzes.
>
> Jerzy, are you saying there's not much correlation between OTB Blitz
> and online Blitz ? If so, why is this? I would think strength at one
> would correlate pretty closely with strength at the other, given that
> it takes a while to get used to mouse techniques.

Mike, I have already written about correlation between on-line and OTB
ratings. Of course I cannot give you exact numbers. There should be
done statistical work among population of chessplayers who play chess
both on-line and OTB.

>From my observations the better a player is in OTB chess the better
the player is in on-line chess. However the rule has its exceptions as
well :-)

Date: 17 Mar 2007 12:15:51
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 17 2007 09:08:45 -0700, "Jerzy" <[email protected] > wrote:

>On 17 , 16:51, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >Rating on-line is not the most objective criteria. It is mainly about
>> >blitzes and bullets and does not say much about real OTB strength also
>> >in OTB blitzes.

>> Jerzy, are you saying there's not much correlation between OTB Blitz
>> and online Blitz ? If so, why is this? I would think strength at one
>> would correlate pretty closely with strength at the other, given that
>> it takes a while to get used to mouse techniques.

>Mike, I have already written about correlation between on-line and OTB
>ratings. Of course I cannot give you exact numbers. There should be
>done statistical work among population of chessplayers who play chess
>both on-line and OTB.

>>From my observations the better a player is in OTB chess the better
>the player is in on-line chess. However the rule has its exceptions as
>well :-)

FWIW, I think the online Playchess Blitz ratings over time probably
correlate pretty closely to OTB Blitz ratings, but the online ratings
are less stable. Why is this? Because, we all have our hot and cold
streaks, days when we play well and days when concentration flags for
one reason or another. If you're playing rated OTB Blitz, the number
of games you can play while in a streak is constrained by the length
of whatever event in which you're playing. In online Blitz, you can
keep playing and playing. When you're hot, the rating goes way up.
When you're cold, it goes way down.

I see a few players whose Playchess ratings seem pretty stable over
time, but many who experience up and down swings of several hundred
points. I think this is relatively rare OTB.

I'd be interested in other players' perspectives on this.

Date: 18 Mar 2007 01:19:25
From: Good Moves are worth BEANS!
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 17 2007 09:08:45 -0700, "Jerzy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 17 , 16:51, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> >Rating on-line is not the most objective criteria. It is mainly about
>>> >blitzes and bullets and does not say much about real OTB strength also
>>> >in OTB blitzes.
>
>>> Jerzy, are you saying there's not much correlation between OTB Blitz
>>> and online Blitz ? If so, why is this? I would think strength at one
>>> would correlate pretty closely with strength at the other, given that
>>> it takes a while to get used to mouse techniques.
>
>>Mike, I have already written about correlation between on-line and OTB
>>ratings. Of course I cannot give you exact numbers. There should be
>>done statistical work among population of chessplayers who play chess
>>both on-line and OTB.
>
>>>From my observations the better a player is in OTB chess the better
>>the player is in on-line chess. However the rule has its exceptions as
>>well :-)
>
> FWIW, I think the online Playchess Blitz ratings over time probably
> correlate pretty closely to OTB Blitz ratings, but the online ratings
> are less stable. Why is this? Because, we all have our hot and cold
> streaks, days when we play well and days when concentration flags for
> one reason or another. If you're playing rated OTB Blitz, the number
> of games you can play while in a streak is constrained by the length
> of whatever event in which you're playing. In online Blitz, you can
> keep playing and playing. When you're hot, the rating goes way up.
> When you're cold, it goes way down.

For me, my playchess rating very rarely ever goes below 2100, but has on
ocassion when i'm playing drunk, hungover, or really really tired. Over 90%
of the time it's relatively stable between 2200-2300. I've been over 2400
but that's rare for me.

I agree with your comment about there being a greater rating fluctuation in
general, with online ratings. I think this is due to the greater volume of
games played, and also to the greater diversity in opposition. Styles are a
factor. I've had games with 2300 players who I found much easier to beat
than certain 2100 players. There is also a steady stream of new players on
free trial accounts whose rating at the time you play them may not be that
of their true strength yet.

JMR

Date: 17 Mar 2007 08:25:15
From: Jerzy
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 16 , 20:50, "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I believe that most players reach their peak strength at age 30, and
> then remain relatively stable for the next 20-30 years with their
> ratings rarely going up or down more than 50 points.

Yes, it is about simple biology and the process of aging, however the
rule has its exceptions.

[...]
> Nowadays, any kid with a computer can play chess online with
> grandmasters 24 hours a day. Opponents are always available. I am
> certain that if I had had such opportunities when I was a kid I would
> have become a good player.

Sam, today kiddies have not only internet in hand but also
chessprograms and chess coaches who train them heavily for reasonable
prices and salaries.

And they start playing much earlier then itt was several decades
before.

>
> Nowadays we have a 14 year old kid from Norway with a rating over 2700
> who regularly beats the best players in the world. He has obviously
> spent a lot of time on the Internet.

Rating on-line is not the most objective criteria. It is mainly about
blitzes and bullets and does not say much about real OTB strength also
in OTB blitzes.

Date: 17 Mar 2007 08:51:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 17 2007 08:25:15 -0700, "Jerzy" <[email protected] > wrote:

>Rating on-line is not the most objective criteria. It is mainly about
>blitzes and bullets and does not say much about real OTB strength also
>in OTB blitzes.

Jerzy, are you saying there's not much correlation between OTB Blitz
and online Blitz ? If so, why is this? I would think strength at one
would correlate pretty closely with strength at the other, given that
it takes a while to get used to mouse techniques.

Date: 22 Mar 2007 17:20:53
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 17 2007 08:25:15 -0700, "Jerzy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Rating on-line is not the most objective criteria. It is mainly about
>>blitzes and bullets and does not say much about real OTB strength also
>>in OTB blitzes.
>
> Jerzy, are you saying there's not much correlation between OTB Blitz
> and online Blitz ? If so, why is this? I would think strength at one
> would correlate pretty closely with strength at the other, given that
> it takes a while to get used to mouse techniques.

To address several points here:

* My rating went up almost 300 points around age 45. I had achieved a 1500
rating at age 15, which remained stable for 3 years. I did not play rated
chess again for 12 years, and after two tournaments I found myself in the
mid-high 1600 rating group. I then quit again for 10 years. After I returned
my rating jumped to mid-1900s and since then has remained within 1880-1910
about 90% of the time.

* Today my USCF rating (1870-ish), blitz rating (1870-ish), and slow server
rating (1870-ish) are all within a few points of each other, as they usually
are. I've been as high as 2100+ twice on ICC but that is usually an
aberration.

* I have no scientific data on this, but to paraphrase the senator from
Texas, "I was a 1500 player. I knew 1500 players. And these kids are not
1500 players." My games from the old days are horrendous, full of blunders
and horrible openings. In my current tournament I beat a 1600 player through
a cheapo (he was up the equivalent of a Queen), and barely beat an unrated
last Monday -- a guy who will probably come in at around 1600 when he gets a
rating.

When I first got back to playing a decade ago we had 4-5 old timers in our
club, all rated betwen 1500 and about 1670, and every single one of them was
a pushover. I'd look at the schedule the day of my game, eat a big dinner,
have a couple of glasses of wine, and go play. In my first 5 years at the
club I was something like 80-0-3 against this group. Now all those guys are
dead or gone and when I face up-and-coming B and C players I never know
what's going to happen. One, rated about 1670, has a plus score against me
over about a dozen games.

Again, I have no numbers, but it seems as if the level of chess playing
ability has gone way, way up among all groups, maybe by 100 points, maybe
even more. One of our members, a former 2300 player, believes "most" of us
would have been experts 20 years ago. Well I don't know about that. After
all, he's 75, floored at 2000 and probably wishing for the good old days.

adp

Date: 21 Mar 2007 07:15:17
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 21, 8:35 am, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On 21, 1:15 am, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> You picked one stray example of a person with a higher cfc rating than
> >> uscf
> >> rating. There are probably something in the order of 5 to 1 ration of the
> >> converse, when all things are equal. In the case you mentioned, the
> >> person
> >> had played a dramatically different number of rated cfc events than rated
> >> uscf events.
>
> >> JMR
>
> > Actually I could cite many more
>
> As I said, for every exception case you site, there are around 5 where it's
> the other way around. I don't know why I always need to repeat myself with
> you. Did I use any words too difficult for you to comprehend? Look at the
> stats where americans play Canadians of similiar ratings. The americans get
> their ass kicked almost every time. USCF ratings have been artificially
> boosted and are inflated compared to CFC ratings. End of story.
>
> JMR

Please cite those stats or there is no end of story. I have at least
cited *something*, all we have from you is a statement where
supposedly Americans are getting their asses kicked, and another
statement about how USCF ratings are somehow boosted. Can you show how
by relevant citations, a scientific study, anything other than your
imagination running wild? I don't see Zugic or Charbonneau doing any
better than their CFC ratings would indicate in the US. If you have
evidence, you should show it, and not just a game by some guy who
happened to show up in Winterpeg. Single case studies don't cut it.

As to words too difficult to comprehend, that isn't a problem. The
comprehension problem is on your end. You need to show this evidence
of boosted ratings; else it is just more empty homoerotic bullying on
your part. As usual.

Date: 21 Mar 2007 14:31:48
From: Good Moves are worth BEANS!
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

Get off your fat little punk ass and do the research yourself moron. I'm not
going to hold your hand and show you how to look information up.

And USCF ratings aren't "somehow" boosted. They are literally boosted. They
get boosted all the time. The other thing that I know an uneducated twit
like you would have a hard, if not impossible, time understanding is that
the rating/strength difference between two pools isn't a linear function.
ie; if an 1800 CFC player is as strong as a 1900 USCF player, that doesn't
necessarily mean that a 2200 CFC is really 2300 in strength. I could perhaps
be 2250 at that level.

I know this is way over your melon head and a guy like you, who hasn't
studied, nor could ever understand, calculus, can't fathom how this could be
the case, but ask someone ster than you (ie; over 100 IQ) and you'll find
that they will concur.

JMR

Date: 21 Mar 2007 05:45:28
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 21, 1:15 am, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> You picked one stray example of a person with a higher cfc rating than uscf
> rating. There are probably something in the order of 5 to 1 ration of the
> converse, when all things are equal. In the case you mentioned, the person
> had played a dramatically different number of rated cfc events than rated
> uscf events.
>
> JMR

Actually I could cite many more, but it still wouldn't have any real
significance. I received the CFC magazine for a number of years, where
"foreign players" were listed. And I didn't cite one; I cited one
"lower-rated" player and made note of activity as a confounding
factor, but did cite a number of higher-rated players with lower or
equal CFC to USCF; still doesn't prove anything. Reading what you are
replying to would help you in formulating a more cogent reply.

As to your 5 to 1 "ration", I assume you have a citation that proves
this, and not your usual "I know a guy"? Until then, the null
hypothesis holds; there is no difference between CFC and USCF ratings.

Date: 21 Mar 2007 13:35:24
From: Good Moves are worth BEANS!
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 21, 1:15 am, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You picked one stray example of a person with a higher cfc rating than
>> uscf
>> rating. There are probably something in the order of 5 to 1 ration of the
>> converse, when all things are equal. In the case you mentioned, the
>> person
>> had played a dramatically different number of rated cfc events than rated
>> uscf events.
>>
>> JMR
>
> Actually I could cite many more

As I said, for every exception case you site, there are around 5 where it's
the other way around. I don't know why I always need to repeat myself with
you. Did I use any words too difficult for you to comprehend? Look at the
stats where americans play Canadians of similiar ratings. The americans get
their ass kicked almost every time. USCF ratings have been artificially
boosted and are inflated compared to CFC ratings. End of story.

JMR

Date: 20 Mar 2007 12:32:40
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 20, 12:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> I realize you imply this with your comment about activity levels, but
> *when* the ratings were earned is also critical. For example, I
> think Kleist had a very solid USCF Expert's rating for many years.

Right, Mike - as I said activity levels and "a ton of other things" -
there are just too many things involved to accept anecdotal evidence
or even a brief view at the ratings, as I did. That is why I am hoping
the CFC has studied the issue and isn't just caving in to popular
belief. Someone else made a comment about someone and their DWZ and
how that person ended up with a higher USCF - I don't think there is
much difference there either, again just based on what I see at
playchess (these days, given a real name, it is easy to look up
anyone's rating, if you know their federation). If that DWZ was based
on years and the new USCF only a few months.... well...

Anyway, I still think Ken Sloan is the answer man on this one.... but
I really don't know if anyone has tried to really make comparisons
between all these different rating pools beyond "I know a guy....."

Date: 21 Mar 2007 06:15:10
From: Good Moves are worth BEANS!
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

You picked one stray example of a person with a higher cfc rating than uscf
rating. There are probably something in the order of 5 to 1 ration of the
converse, when all things are equal. In the case you mentioned, the person
had played a dramatically different number of rated cfc events than rated
uscf events.

JMR

Date: 18 Mar 2007 01:09:33
From: Good Moves are worth BEANS!
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

Date: 17 Mar 2007 01:13:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rating Inflation/Deflation

On 16, 3:50 pm, "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I believe that most players reach their peak strength at age 30, and
> then remain relatively stable for the next 20-30 years with their
> ratings rarely going up or down more than 50 points.
>
> Thus if you see an across-the-board drop of all players in the 30--50
> age group of 100 to 150 points, you know that something is wrong.

The USCF should consider adopting the same system
used by our national government, which is to say, one of
constant inflation and devaluation of its currency, or in
this case, ratings.

Here are a just a few of the advantages:

1) Most players would think they are still improving,
because their ratings keep climbing.

2) Players who believe they are improving tend to
play more often, to see how high they can go.

3) This in turn brings in more revenue, in the form of
membership renewals and tournament rating fees.

4) After several years of rampant ratings inflation,
Bobby Fischer would start playing again to protect
his record from being broken by all the "weakies".

5) The USCF could offer "bonus points" to rated
players who enroll new members, or who play a
set number of games per year, etc.

6) All other chess-playing Web sites would become
obsolete, since only the USCF would offer bonuses
and constant inflation to bolster its members' ratings
ever higher and higher.

Now, there could be a couple of very minor drawbacks,
though these are fairly insignificant in view of all the
above advantages:

1) Currency devaluation may eventually lead to total
collapse of our monetary system, as we know it.

2) The Chinese and Japanese, among others, may well
take over our former position in the global economy,
leaving us struggling just to feed and clothe ourselves
whilst they become the new world leaders. (Even so,
we would undoubtedly become a leader among all the
other banana republics like us).

3) Ratings inflation can lead to an effect known as
devaluation, whereby bigger numbers are quite
worthless.

As you can see, the advantages far outweigh the
relatively few, and small, disadvantages. This is why
I favor immediate adoption of the ratings-inflation plan.
If patented, the USCF would not only enjoy the
"first mover advantage", but also exclusive rights to
all this entails.

-- help bot