20 Feb 07
Originally posted by techsouthNonsense. If anything, the huge influx of scholastic players in recent years has served to deflate the ratings. Too many 1000s and 1200s that play like 1500s and take lots of scalps on their slow climb up (when they play adults).
Additionally, the USCF have been deliberately inflating their ratings.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by WulebgrI'd have to agree with Wulebgr.
Nonsense. If anything, the huge influx of scholastic players in recent years has served to deflate the ratings. Too many 1000s and 1200s that play like 1500s and take lots of scalps on their slow climb up (when they play adults).
every rating system is inflating a little at the top level only because top player gain points after winning and don't lose as many when the lose.
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrI'll see if I can dig up the article (by the USCF) I read about this.
Nonsense. If anything, the huge influx of scholastic players in recent years has served to deflate the ratings. Too many 1000s and 1200s that play like 1500s and take lots of scalps on their slow climb up (when they play adults).
Their purpose was to counter the effects of the deflation that had happened as you described.
Update: I found the article in the October 2006 issue of Chess Life. I guess you have to be a member to read online, but I'll paste a short exerpt. The article was a Q&A session with Mark Glickman.
HG: Four years ago, the USCF rating system underwent a major overhaul. Why did this happen?
MG: Back in 1995, if memory serves correctly, we had 100-point rating floors —if your highest established rating was 1734, your rating floor would be 1600 (100 points below your highest rating, rounded down to the nearest multiple of 100). Because so many people were on their rating floor, the EB at that time agreed to create a 200-point floor. This is where it stands now. Coupled with the drop in the rating floor was an increased influx of scholastic players into the USCF, who were improving more quickly than the rating system could track them. Both of these factors, in combination, resulted in what seemed to be rating deflation, where players who were otherwise at stable strength were consistently losing to young underrated players. The EB claimed that the USCF was rapidly losing members who were frustrated by unfair rating decreases, and wanted the Ratings Committee to address this problem. In response, the Ratings Committee developed a substantially revised rating system. The details of the system had been worked out by 1997, but USCF office difficulties prevented its implementation until early 2001.
So I stand by what I said that the USCF is deliberately inflating their ratings. They're doing it to combat the results of the deflation that you describe. Since I last played in 1998, I probably suffered some of the deflation, but have not benefitted yet from some of the subsequent inflation.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by techsouthThe changes in the rating system mitigate the effects of deflation slightly, but they have not eliminated it. Scholastic players still join in droves, get rated in scholastic events (where the median rating is below 600), and then gravitate into adult events where they prove stronger than their ratings indicate.
I'll see if I can dig up the article (by the USCF) I read about this.
Their purpose was to counter the effects of the deflation that had happened as you described.
Update: I found the article in the October 2006 issue of Chess Life. I guess you have to be a member to read online, but I'll paste a short exerpt. The article was a Q&A session with Mar ...[text shortened]... red some of the deflation, but have not benefitted yet from some of the subsequent inflation.
You allege that there is inflation, but have offered no evidence of that.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by WulebgrIt pays to be freinds with the TDs 🙂
The changes in the rating system mitigate the effects of deflation slightly, but they have not eliminated it. Scholastic players still join in droves, get rated in scholastic events (where the median rating is below 600), and then gravitate into adult events where they prove stronger than their ratings indicate.
You allege that there is inflation, but have offered no evidence of that.
Joking aside, I love sectionals because the competition is much better. Round Robin with 6 players +/- 100 points of your rating, and 5 rounds.
Plus you know who you are potentially going to play, thus you can avoid playing most of the younger kids, or unrated players. Depends on your rating though. Most of those young underrated juniors coming in around 1000-1200ish.
Swisses I dislike for that reason. You play random players, and in 5 round tourney, maybe round 4 and 5 you get decent pairings.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by WulebgrPerhaps you should read the whole article.
The changes in the rating system mitigate the effects of deflation slightly, but they have not eliminated it. Scholastic players still join in droves, get rated in scholastic events (where the median rating is below 600), and then gravitate into adult events where they prove stronger than their ratings indicate.
You allege that there is inflation, but have offered no evidence of that.
You referred to my claim as "nonsense" which transistions this discussion over to the distasteful category as far as I'm concerned.
If deflation has occurred over a period of many years, there may be some who have kept the same skill who have seen their rating lowered by 100s of points. The article is clear, the purpose of the ratings changes is to raise these ratings back up, not merely slow their descent. If a person was active up until the rating change, but has been inactive since, that person could expect to see competition a little easier at the same rating if he/she went back now.
Posting this whole article would be a copyright violation, but many on RHP are able to view. If you read the article, you will see that my claim is correct. If posting a reference to an article released by the USCF is not "evidence", I don't know what is.
I am not at all discounting your description of how ratings [/i]tend[i] to deflate, but I do contend that the USCF has deliberately set out to reverse some of these effects.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by WulebgrI think perhaps non-members can view this.
The changes in the rating system mitigate the effects of deflation slightly, but they have not eliminated it. Scholastic players still join in droves, get rated in scholastic events (where the median rating is below 600), and then gravitate into adult events where they prove stronger than their ratings indicate.
You allege that there is inflation, but have offered no evidence of that.
http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/magazine_124_123.php
Here is a compelling quote:
Given the difficulty in testing the rating system, what the ratings committee has been doing the last few years is monitoring active, established players who are between 35 to 45 years old, and checking the change in average rating for this group over time. We chose this group, in particular, because we expect, on average, that such players do not have strengths that change appreciably. From about the mid 1990s to 2001, the average rating for the 35- to 45-year-olds dropped between 20 to 25 points per year. Since 2001, the average ratings have been increasing 10 to 15 points per year. Our goal, though somewhat arbitrary, is to increase ratings back to the level they were in 1997. We’re about 40 points below this level, so it will still be a few more years until we’re at the right place.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by techsouthThank you. That quote may offer support for your contention. However, if you finish the paragraph from which you quote, you will see Glickman's own doubt regarding the assertion that these adjustments are inflationary.
I think perhaps non-members can view this.
http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/magazine_124_123.php
Here is a compelling quote:
Given the difficulty in testing the rating system, what the ratings committee has been doing the last few years is monitoring active, established players who are between 35 to 45 years old, and checking the change in aver ...[text shortened]... oints below this level, so it will still be a few more years until we’re at the right place.
It is possible that chess knowledge has improved in 10 years, so that everyone has simultaneously gotten better. There is no way for the rating system alone to track simultaneous improvement in playing strength because ratings are only relative measures of strength, not a measure of strength on an absolute scale. (Glickman)
Inflation presumes an increase in ratings relative to playing strength. Ratings did drop relative to playing strength with the influx of scholastic players. As they creep back up, they may only keep pace with an overall improvement in playing strength.
I have read the entire article; first, when it came out in the magazine; then again today when you posted the link. I called your first statement "nonsense," prior to you posting any evidence or links. I did not repeat this term after you bagan to argue your points.
23 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Red Nightthat's not inflation, that's difference in scaling. a 2250 FIDE rating is not inflated from a 200 BCF rating, the systems just have different scaling. inflation happens over time within a single system, not between two different systems.
I would estimate that the rating inflation on RHP is somewhere between 200 and 400 points.
Right now I'm about 150-200 points above my best USCF rating.
23 Aug 07
Originally posted by wormwoodGood point.
that's not inflation, that's difference in scaling. a 2250 FIDE rating is not inflated from a 200 BCF rating, the systems just have different scaling. inflation happens over time within a single system, not between two different systems.
I discussed two separate issues as if they were one.