Article: 15279 of rec.games.chess.misc Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc Path: info!dregis From: dregis@exeter.ac.uk (D.Regis) Subject: Re: ratings variation Message-ID: Organization: University of Exeter, UK. References: <01bbfba7$bed28b00$3bdcacce@b1eokd65.sympatico.ca> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 09:42:46 GMT In article <01bbfba7$bed28b00$3bdcacce@b1eokd65.sympatico.ca> "Dave B." writes: >Does anyone else find it quite remarkable that at Fischer's peak there was >only one player rated over 2700, while now there are eight? What has gone >wrong with the built in checks and balances in the rating system? > >Dave B. 
                                                       

Elo says this is an expected result if there are more people playing
chess now.  Are there?  e.g. If Fischer was one in a million, are
Kasparov and Co. just 8 in 8 million? 

A better model of the distribution of chess strengths suggests that
the wider the base of the pyramid (greater number of players), the
taller the peak (more players over given grade), rather than insisting
on a fixed proportion being over 2700. 


                 /\        ________ 2700                              
    /\          /  \       ________ 2600                              
   /  \        /    \                                      
  /    \      /      \                                       
 /      \    /        \                                    
/________\  /__________\
  1970          1990


[But, is Karpov at age 40-odd really 100 points stronger now than he
 was ten years ago?]

From info!dregis Thu Jan  9 10:33:25 GMT 1997