rating inflation

For discussion pertaining to Chess, Net-Chess, or general interests.
Post Reply

How does your slowchess rating compare to your other chess ratings?

substantially higher
21
75%
slightly higher
5
18%
about the same
1
4%
slightly lower
0
No votes
substantially lower
1
4%
 
Total votes: 28

wulebgr
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:12 pm
Location: PNW USA
Contact:

rating inflation

Post by wulebgr » Tue Apr 06, 2004 4:02 pm

My rating here is much higher than my USCF rating, my ratings on servers like ICC, and my other correspondence ratings. 300-600 points. How typical is my experience?

tellymetwise
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:48 pm

Post by tellymetwise » Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:00 pm

Actually, as there is hardly any play between internet chess "clubs", ratings tends to differ quite a lot from site to site and from internet to real life (including between USCF and any other chess federation, though international championships tend to reduce the differences).

As long as ratings can be used to see how strong your opponent is, then the ELO rating does what it should do:
It shows your statistical chance of winning from your opponent.

Any adjustment in your rating will reflect your change to win or loose again against the same opponent (or an opponent of the same strength).


NB.
This site has set a MAX rating of 3000 to halt inflation since end last year.
Some people will slowly notice that their rating will drop due to this ceiling over a period of 8-12 months.

towserone
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 7:07 pm

Post by towserone » Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:17 pm

My OTB rating is near 1000 points lower

knightmare
Uranium
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 1999 10:56 pm

Post by knightmare » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:37 pm

tellymetwise said:
'This site has set a MAX rating of 3000 to halt inflation since end last year.
Some people will slowly notice that their rating will drop due to this ceiling over a period of 8-12 months.'


Of course it's also possible that eventually we will all have a rating of 3000.
As long a players rating can go up without his opponents rating going down, then we are dumping points into the rating pool and the average rating will continue to rise. It just can't rise beyond 3000.

The floor is the source or rating inflation, not the ceiling in my view.
But of cource we have already beat that horse to death.

tellymetwise
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:48 pm

Post by tellymetwise » Wed Apr 07, 2004 2:30 am

The current top floor rating is 2100 even with a rating of 3000.

If you, or any other, notice that your actual rating should be below your floor rating, you can always contact Greg, or place a post here, with your request to remove your floor rating.

One of the curtesies of this site is that you won't drop below your floor due to unforseen reasons.

gregorgysi
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 7:57 am

Post by gregorgysi » Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:14 pm

I can only compare my actual rating by considering my results in rapid chess OTB tournaments. I play a performace of 2100-2200 there. (20mins/game). On the site I play like 5-10 secs. per move, as I have a lot of games going on at the same time. Sure, if the position requires deeper thoughts, I take my time.
My rating here (without rating floor!) changes between 2200 and 2400. So I think for me it's ok. Maybe silghtly higher, as I voted.
We had the discussion ("abolish the rating floor") very often. Sometimes leading me as the doyen.
Now I think: leave the floor but "highest rating -200". Maximum rating floor 2500.
This leaves some room for cheaters. But cheaters will always be able to cheat: If they want, they would use a chess program.
A rating-floor of 2500 is enough for this site, as I don't think there's a GM among us.
(Sorry for doubled arguments)

jstripes
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 3:56 pm

Post by jstripes » Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:17 pm

I have noticed that the average game that I play here is against players rated higher than almost everone in my town--perhaps the inflation stems from the rating formula with respect to calculation of games against provisionally rated players.

Although Tellymetwise makes a good point about inflated ratings still providing useful information regarding relative playing strength, the inflation at this site erases any sense in which 2200 means a master-level player. Rather 2100-2200 at SlowChess seems to reflect an B or C player; 2400-2600 an A player; 2600-2800 an expert; and those above 2800 might deserve the title SlowChess Masters.

It would not hurt my feelings if Greg simply subtracted 500 points from every rating, then implemented minimum ratings only for those above a certain level, and who maintain their rating over a set number of games.

knightmare
Uranium
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 1999 10:56 pm

Post by knightmare » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:59 pm

If you took a random sample of 100 players rating from this site, added them all up and then divided by 100 you would come up with a number which I shall call the “sites average rating” or S.A.R.
The S.A.R. should be about 1500. And steps should be taken to keep it there. This would bring our ratings in line with other recognized and established organizations. Perhaps Greg could be persuaded to calculate the S.A.R. I would be surprised if it’s less then 2000.
If ratings are to have any meaning or significance (even within our closed community) then the SAR must remains reasonably stable and constant. The reason for this is because in the long run, and taken as a whole, chess players are NOT getting any stronger. The average player today is playing at about the same strength as the average player of 40 or 50 years ago. For every player whose strength is improving, there is another that is in decline. And the s.a.r. shouldreflect this fact. . Now…. If those 100 players played only amongst themselves and ratings were allowed to fluctuate based solely on results, then for every point that one player gained another player would have to lose. The total number of point in the rating pool would remain constant, and so would the average rating. The system is stable!
What is happening here is just the opposite. I believe this is occurring primarily because of the rating floor.
When a player that is at his floor loses a game, but does not lose any points, even while his winning opponent gains points, then the rating pool is larger (more points distributed to the same number of players) and the s.a.r. goes up.
This is a slow and incremental process but the cumulative effect is clear.
As long as we keep dumping points into the rating pool then it’s just a matter of time till everyone rating is 3000. The notion that ratings are useful as a predictor of results is
increasingly imaginary as everyone’s rating approaches equilibrium.

This is not a call to drop the rating floor. We’ve been down that road and decisions have been made. But…. Let’s stop deluding ourselves that this system is not broken when even bad players with losing records have ratings that are constantly going up.

Thanks,
Dan

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Wed Apr 07, 2004 11:41 pm

Average rating = 395. Do you still want me to bump it up to 1500?

Code: Select all

mysql> select sum(rating)/count(*) from users;
+----------------------+
| sum(rating)/count(*) |
+----------------------+
|               395.15 |
+----------------------+
1 row in set (0.24 sec)

mysql>

mysql> select sum(rating)/count(*) from users where rating>0;
+----------------------+
| sum(rating)/count(*) |
+----------------------+
|              1201.21 |
+----------------------+
1 row in set (0.25 sec)

mysql>
mysql> select sum(rating)/count(*) from users where rating>1000;
+----------------------+
| sum(rating)/count(*) |
+----------------------+
|              1544.86 |
+----------------------+
1 row in set (0.25 sec)

mysql>



keithstuart
Uranium
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 1999 3:52 am
Location: NW England
Contact:

Post by keithstuart » Thu Apr 08, 2004 1:58 am

it would be a little tricky including every member as i doubt every single one actually plays and games plus negative scores are impossible and there were loads of stupidly high initial ratings too


There is only one way to stop all discussions but it is a very radical method

Simply reset everyones rating to 1500 and scrap the rating floor given time peoples ratings will migrate towards there true value

Mine is way too high as i am not an IM yet i have a rating of 2550 approximatly

Another way is to leave it as it is but set up a seperate section where people who are that bothered can play matches and games with starting ratings of 1500 and somehow have their ratngs calculated seperatly.


One thing i do find odd is that if you look at your own profile their is a averating setion which is the average rating of all your opponents mine is 1678 and i have approximatly a 50% win record

If the average opponent i play is rated 1678 then in theroy my own rating should be near the same rating value. Mine is so much higher becuase i have been playing here for pretty much as long as the site has existed and the rating floor has certain been a factor over the years with me.

How many of you can honestly say you never stopped playing a lost game so you could winor draw a few more to bump up your rating floor before resigning the lost games, i know i have done it in the past.


One other thing that is unusual is that if you are in a game with a huge rating difference (over 200) the points gained and lost is not always the same on either side.

pe
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 5:08 pm

Post by pe » Thu Apr 08, 2004 5:56 am

the discussion pro & con rating floor has been going on for a long time now.

I understand the arguments for removing it :
- it IS an important cause for rating inflation
- difference between slowchessrating and OTB is big (mine : 2300 vs 1300)

With the highest floor at 2100 and the floor now 200 points 'behind', i think the inflation is a lot less. but still not totally gone.

resetting all ratings to 1500 would solve all these problems. however : i also understand that a lot of players have put a lot of effort into obtaining their hard earned rating, and would hate to see their efforts swept away, and being ask 'to do it all over again'. and : it would be a bit annoying in the beginning, if all ratings are +/- 1500.

but maybe we can have both : what if we keep the rating we have, with floors and ceilings and whatever, AND have a secundary rating? this one starts at 1500, works with no floors or ceilings. this secundary rating should result in a more OTB-like rating.

People who are more fond of their 'high rating' can focus on that one, the others on the secundary one. Because the first rating still exists, we still have some idea about the relative strength of the opponent, while the secundary rating starts to gain meaning.

as for setting up challenges : maybe one could specify in either ratingsystem how strong opponents are allowed to be. (or even a combination of both).

I think the combination of both ratings would give a clearer view on opponents : people who use their floor often (i.e. : resign losing games while being at their floor, and keep the other games going to collect points afterwards), would get a big difference between both ratings.

just my 2 cts. (again)
pe

wulebgr
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:12 pm
Location: PNW USA
Contact:

Post by wulebgr » Tue May 25, 2004 10:36 am

When I create a database of all my completed games, which includes those that timed out, ChessBase calculates my performance rating 200 points lower than the SlowChess calculator. No doubt different formulas are at play, but I suspect that the average rating of those who time out is the key difference.

Current SlowChess rating: 2275, based on 79 games against average rating of 1920, 54-14-11 (w-l-d)
ChessBase Performance rating: 2078, based on 125 games against average rating of 1805, 100-14-11

Of course, if these calculations were applied across the board, the ratings would fall even more, as my opponents' ratings would be lower.

Perhaps there is a solution to the rating inflation on this site buried in this information.

sirthursday
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:31 am

Post by sirthursday » Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:00 am

I must agree with Pe. A secondary rating is a good idea, and it allows a fair representation of playing strength. The only possible problem is that the average playing strength of players on this site is over 1500, in which case ratings will be deflated, or below 1500 in which case ratings are still inflated. Either way there will be much less inflation than before.

jjones
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 1999 4:37 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by jjones » Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:16 pm

We all know the chess rating has been SO beaten to death over and over...I like to just play Chess, do my best and have FUN!
I think Greg does a great job here and let's just play our game and do not worry about the people that are so overinflated...their time will come!
Part of the thing that makes Chess so enjoyable and educational for me is the people I play here, the chats, games, discussions about other things going on in our worlds...hell, even my dreaded arch-rival Keith Stuart :) I dearly enjoy playing against, even if he is a HUGE pain in my Zapper ;)
LETS KEEP HAVING FUN AND JUST PLAY CHESS:)

JEff aka "Zapper" :twisted:
Oh yes, those who dare to go against my "Suggestion" shall find themselves mercilessly "Zapped" under mysterious circumstances mwuhahahahahaha...trailing off in the shadows from hence I came....

jstripes
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 3:56 pm

Post by jstripes » Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:15 am

When ratings are terribly inflated, the site generates scorn from some serious players. I'd prefer to see more of these players online here. When I invest a month or two in a game against someone with a rating above 2200, and then win because of a 1200 rating bullet-style error by my opponent . . . :cry:

Of course, ratings are always relative, and the delusion that I play at master-level strength here does not detract from my enjoyment of the pace and ease of play. :) Zapper's comments in the forum, as well as those of others, adds additional pleasure.

keithstuart
Uranium
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 1999 3:52 am
Location: NW England
Contact:

Post by keithstuart » Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:53 am

jjones wrote:We all know the chess rating has been SO beaten to death over and over...I like to just play Chess, do my best and have FUN!
I think Greg does a great job here and let's just play our game and do not worry about the people that are so overinflated...their time will come!
Part of the thing that makes Chess so enjoyable and educational for me is the people I play here, the chats, games, discussions about other things going on in our worlds...hell, even my dreaded arch-rival Keith Stuart :) I dearly enjoy playing against, even if he is a HUGE pain in my Zapper ;)
LETS KEEP HAVING FUN AND JUST PLAY CHESS:)

JEff aka "Zapper" :twisted:
Oh yes, those who dare to go against my "Suggestion" shall find themselves mercilessly "Zapped" under mysterious circumstances mwuhahahahahaha...trailing off in the shadows from hence I came....
Arch Rival ???

I let you win sometimes ;)

jjones
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 1999 4:37 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by jjones » Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:13 pm

"Arch Rival ???

I let you win sometimes"


Ohhhh just for that, I have an extra strong dose of "Zappage" for you!!!
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzaaaappp mwuahahahahahahahaha

But it is nice to belong to a site that we can all play and have a good time as lots of us do!

JEff aka "Zapper" :twisted:

mic
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:31 pm

Post by mic » Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:33 am

:D :D :oops: I believe JJONES and Keith Stuart have the correct idea: this is just fun ratings dont mean much just play....and the mwuhaaaaaa from austin powers was a good touch. :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: I mean lets face it we all have made bonehead moves cause we were naked in our computer chair...I mean strike that last phrase your honor....dont let the jury hear that. anyways, I just want to let you all know that just cause I like thong underwear when i play doesnt give me an unfair advantage.... :oops: :P
enjoyed chess for thirty years...have lots of books and mags but never time to study. Maybe when I retire...chess strength has gone done ratings are unrealistic

knightowl
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 12:54 pm

better games

Post by knightowl » Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:20 pm

still, better ratings result in better matches

dragondude
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 3:16 pm

rting question?

Post by dragondude » Mon Jul 05, 2004 3:11 pm

[quote="gregorgysi"]I can only compare my actual rating by considering my results in rapid chess OTB tournaments. I play a performace of 2100-2200 there. (20mins/game). On the site I play like 5-10 secs. per move, as I have a lot of games going on at the same time. Sure, if the position requires deeper thoughts, I take my time.
My rating here (without rating floor!) changes between 2200 and 2400. So I think for me it's ok. Maybe silghtly higher, as I voted.

Hi Greg , thanks for you input!
My guess is , if you took more than 5-10 secs per move and played less games simultaneously you would reach 2900 or 3000 . But your having fun, that's what counts. The thing that irks me sometimes, is the correlation of the persons true strength to the rating, we got some rated astronomically high, and are poor players and some rated average and are really good players. such as yourself.

Well, that's my 2 cents worth.

Best Regards Dragondude

Post Reply