In article , Angelo DePalma says...


I didn't read Elo, but as I recall a discussion on this very topic about a
year ago brought some folks out of the woodwork who claimed that your
statement, Paul, was mathematically incorrect. That adjustments had been
made to counter deflation, and they worked.


You guys are talking around each other. The Elo system is implicitly
deflationary. As a player improves and gains points he will cause opponents of
"static strength" to deflate. This is what Paul is saying, and it is correct.

The new system is designed to re-inflate the system. Based on the way this was
done, players that do not play or who play little will see little benefit from
this. Based on the last measurements I had heard about, the system was, in
fact, re-inflating.

A bigger issue might be that chess, as a whole, consistently gets harder to
maintain the same place. For example, with the extra data and training
available today, it is much more difficult for me to outbook an opponent,
particularly someone who can devote more time to chess, like a high school
student. They are almost always more likely to know the latest lines better
than I.

So I don't try. I use old variations (which they seldom know) or try to
positionally outplay them.

But I see the following with regularity Angelo: young players with ratings
comparable to mine who I am convinced have less chess knowledge than I do. This
means that they have had a recent level of tournament success comparable to
mine. It does not mean that they are "stronger" in an overall sense. And I try
to use that to my advantage.

Kevin L. Bachler