"ASCACHESS" wrote
Chess is fun, but it is not life.

As opposed to college football? (smileyface here)


Oh how bitter are the disappointed :-)

John, you also forget the critical mass argument. Even before 1991 the
Soviets had more GMs than anyone. With communism's fall I believe they found
themselves without sponsorship, in need of work. Somehow, they have
successfully communicated their craft to the younger generation.

Our last home grown world-class GMs were Larry Christiansen, Walter Browne,
and Yasser Seirawan. That was back in the freaking '70s, before you were
born! All are well past their prime.

Aside: John, there's still time for you to become the first FIDE-titled
Xavier graduate.

ang





"John Fernandez" wrote in message
...
If computers have raised the level of play why, over the past 20 years,
has
the US fallen to oblivion in the world chess arena and the Russians
remained
on top?

1) Better teaching methods
2) Fall of "Communism" hasn't worked its way through the generations. Even
some
of the youngest ones (Radjabov) first got in in only a couple of years
after
Soviet days ended.
3) Computers only help you if you use them properly. I'm utterly convinced
that
99% of Americans use them wrong, from my experience.
4) USCF rules hurt our players internationally.
5) Chess is still a good way to make an income in Eastern Europe + Russia.
This
argument I thought was suspicious until I played in Warsaw two weeks ago
and
spoke to one player who can make more in a Bundesliga weekend than in a
month
even at a university job.

Were it not for eastern European immigrants we'd be hard pressed
to come in 100th in the Olympiad.

Or maybe instead of USCF's strong desire to get players to move here (by
sending every player on a top 100 list a letter asking them to emigrate),
we'd
actually work on producing players.

I can only think of 3 players who were raised here in chess who have made
GM -
in the past DECADE. (Shaked, Ashley, Nakamura. If you can add to this
list, let
me know.)

John Fernandez

First, chess "intelligence" often, but not always, corresponds to broader
intellecual ability. However, the correlation with actual achievement is
kind of shaky: I know good chess players who are doctors and scientists, and
some who stock shelves at ShopRite.

Unfortunately since the 1960s the US has had to import hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of scientists and engineers from Asia. Pretty
soon we'll be importing Botswanians to teach U.S. history and Fijians to
teach English.

Our schools and teachers are third-rate, and that's reflected in our
graduates. We would be a third-world country today if, through our history,
we were forced to rely on the charlatans and bull**** artists who pose today
as educators and education policy experts.

Angelo

"RSHaas" wrote

The USA doesn't have to be number 1 in chess, or even number 44, as
long as
we're number 1 in the things that count.

RSHaas

Consider this: a pool of 10 players, 5 with established 2000 ratings and 5
unrated. They play a bunch of games and the formerly unrateds drop out
forever after scoring just 10% against the established guys. The next day
five more unrateds enter, play 1000 games against the rated guys, with the
same result, and drop out forever. Do this a bunch of times. Eventually the
formerly 2000-rated guys will be rated close to the average of the entering
unrateds.

This is a case, fairly close to what happens in USCF-land, where deflation
occurs AND aggregate points drop.

INFLATION AND aggregate points dropping can happen simultaneously. Let's say
in our example 2 of the experts win 100% of their games and the unrateds
score some finite number of points. Now let's say after 10 "rounds" of this
silliness EVERYONE drops out except for the two experts who won every game.
Their ratings at this point might be 2150, but the aggregate points have
dropped.

The problem with this last scenario is, if the original gang of five were
accurately rated at 2000, why would some lose 10% of their games while the
others don't ever lose any? In real life that doesn't happen.

Rather than saying that deflation is caused by a loss of aggregate points,
it's more accurate to say that deflation occurs when established rated
players are replaced with inexperienced, unrated players. This has been
happening for decades to USCF, as many here have pointed out (in reference
to other issues).

Angelo

"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Murray
says...

On 8 Jan 2004 05:28:09 -0800, Kevin L. Bachler
wrote:

Or even people dropping out of chess.

Good point. Few drop out (or die) with a lower rating than that with
which they started.

Bad point. The above is irrelevant. If deflation occurs, it occurs
while the
player is improving, NOT when they quit playing. This is a common
misperception.

Why is that? If player-A wins points from player-B, the points are
still in the system. How would that cause general rating deflation?

Because deflation is not caused by removing points from the system. It is
caused by players ratings dropping below their actual current strength.

Ex: (Under the "standard" ELO formula with no bonus, feedback, etc.) 4
players
are all rated 1500 and are in a closed pool. 3 stay static in terms of
strength, one improves to what we would call 1700 strength. Over time the
3
static players will see their ratings drop. But if you add up the number
of
points there will still be a total of 6,000 points in the system, yet
there is
deflation. If the improving player leaves, taking his points out of the
system
causes no additional deflation (although it may make it more difficult to
RE-INFLATE the system)


The analogy or model that springs to mind is one of a primitive
monetary system (no credit, no banks, just cash) -- the custom of
burying all a person's money with that person after death would be
inherently deflationary, wouldn't it?

No. Deflation here means that your rating has decreased to a level less
than
your "actual strength."

A full numeric example is below taken from an earlier post I made. It was
in
response to a question about keeping the average rating of the pool the
same, or
the aggregate number of points in the system the same, in order to prevent
deflation. Following the post are one or two additional comments. I hope
this
helps clarify that having a player leave the pool is not implicitly
deflationary.

+++++++++

From: Kevin L. Bachler
Subject: Inflation - Deflation
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Date: 2001-05-14 11:49:54 PST


Keeping the aggregate points the same DOESN'T stop deflation. Note the
following example, where the aggregate points are the same, but 3 players
end up
being deflated:

Note that this example was done under the old system with K=32, but the
argument
applies to the general trend in any situation with equal K among the
participants.

***********
A common misconception is that the change in the average rating of a
pool can indicate whether it is deflated.

(Note: if the number of participants doesn't change, this also means that
the aggregate points are the same.)

Let's consider the following example, which is a little contrived to
make it simple. However, the principles remain the same in other pools.

Suppose there are 4 1500's, A, B, C, D. They are all established
players. Their ratings are stable. To make the calculations easy, we
will assume that we will calculate rating changes under the old Elo
formula with K=32. Suppose that they are the only four players in the
rating pool. The average rating of the pool is, therefore, 1500.

Elo recognized that simply having an improving player can cause
deflation.

Let's suppose that A decides to study for awhile. As a result, his
strength increases to a degree that on average he scores 3 out of 4
against B, C, and D. These odds represent roughly a 200 rating point
spread.

What we would want the pool to do is this: Since B, C, and D are the
same strength as before, their ratings should stay at 1500. A should
see his rating go toward 1700.

That is, their performances inidcate a strength relative to where they
started of 1500 for B, C, and D and 1700 for A.

Let's suppose that they play 10 rated games against each opponent (30
total.) B, C, and D score 50% against each other, but only 25% against
A, exactly as outlined above. That means B, C, D and E win 12.5 games
each, and A wins 22.5 games.

What are their ratings (assuming for ease that we rate this as 1 event)
at the end of these encounters? (This example is simplified, but
illustrates the point, and the prinicples hold true even if we treat it
as several events.)


The rating formula is:

(W-We) x 32 + Rating old = Rating new

Since all players started at 1500, we expect them all to score 50%.
The winning expectancy, We, therefore = 15 for all the players.

For B, C, D:

(12.5-15.0) x 32 +1500 = 1420

12.5 points, for B for example, is 5 points against C, 5 against D, and
2.5 against A.

For A:

(22.5 - 15.0) x 32 + 1500 = 1740


What is the average rating of the pool? (1420 + 1420 + 1420 +1740)/4 =
1500.

Hmm...exactly the same as before.

Yet, B, C, D are all rated LOWER than their actual skill level of
1500. And even if A loses his "40 extra" points back to the pool
fairly evenly in another series of games, we would see:

A: 1700
B: 1433
C: 1433
D: 1433

That is, 75% of the players in the pool would be deflated, by 67 points
each, even though the average rating of the entire pool is unchanged.

+++++

Returning to the current email...

So now suppose play A stops playing and leaves the pool. What is the
impact on
the ratings of players B, C, and D? Answer: NOTHING. Having a player
leave the
pool doesn't change deflation at all. The deflation HAS ALREADY occured.

However, if any of those remaining players began to improve, it would
further
deflate the pool without an opportunity to win back points from player A.

To prevent this from happening, additional points, such as bonus points,
feedback points, or having a sliding K for different players can be used
to put
points into the system, thereby helping the 3 1500's to remain at their
"static
strength".

Kevin L. Bachler

Eric, there is no point in being cavalier about losing members, regardless
of the reason. I wonder how many times you'd drive 50 miles on cold Monday
nights to play against 935-rated players, especially underrated ones.

As for the guy with the heart condition, cut me a break man. I never heard
of anyone having a heart attack because of chess. You can't deny that the
other guy I mentioned found it hard to maintain his rating at H'town and
left for that reason -- he tells me that about 3-4 times a year. Again, I
can't be so cavalier about losing the company of a friend and worthy
opponent.

Koss hasn't been at his floor for at least 18 months, so I have to assume
he's legit.

"Eric Mark" wrote

I say let him go, even if you miss him and honor his memory. Someday a
few of the 935-rated kids will face the same dilemma.


I know of at least one person who has stopped playing completely, and
another who stopped coming to Hackettstown, because of ratings. The
first
guy is sitting on a 2002 or so rating


If this is who I think it is he had a bad heart attack several years
ago and is not young. He doesn't want to risk losing his life for the
sake of the thrill of rated chess.


and the other, whose last game at our
club was a loss to me (afterward he vowed he was giving up chess), now
"plays up" at the Marshall with masters, FMs and IMs and has regained
2100
status (after falling to below 2000 at H'town).


This guy is the current U.S. Amateur champion. Ratings actually help
keep him in the game: he peaked around 2190 and won't rest till he
makes Master.


Today, five of our club's six former experts are rated: 1940, 1926,
1916,
1855, and 1835. One is in his mid-40s and the others are in their late
30s.


Not to be picky but one is 48, another is 46, and the others are about
38 to 40. We all look like babies to Angelo.


Another, currently rated in the mid-1900s, still occasionally tops 2000.
Our
only former master is down 200 points as well, but he's 74 years old.


This guy actually helps boost the ratings of his opponents, albeit
slightly. He's near his 2000 floor and while he is still a legit low
expert most nights, his rating surely would have dropped into the
1900s a few times during low spots over the past two years, had it not
been for the floor.



I might add that I (age 49) am down about 135 points in the past year.
Overwhelmingly, my rating losses are due to bad play. But I and my
former-expert buddies at H'town have been getting mauled to one degree
or
another by young, improving players.


My only bad upset loss in 2003 came at the hands of a 75-year-old
1500-rated player.



For example, on Monday we had a 300 point upset, 400 point upset, 300
point
upset (all losses by the higher rated) and a 400 point upset draw (my
game).
It's nice to see youngsters improve, but I'm beginning to dread the idea
of
having a 1753 rating in a year or two or, heaven forbid, fall to my 1700
floor. If I continue playing with this group I'm afraid that scenario is
almost inevitable.


Get mad. Get some rest. Study hard and play better.



For the first time ever, on the way home from Monday's game, I began to
wonder what it would be like to play only on the 'Net or against
Shredder. I
would return to competitive chess, of course, when I reach 2200 strength
(big fat ugly smiley face).


Ask GK, a former NM, now lost, possibly forever, to ICC. He never
smiled much.



This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts,
who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation. That it's mathematically impossible and that, after all, I
have
been playing badly. I've seen those arguments and I think they're
basically
the product of somebody either not thinking this idea through or
covering
his ass.


Actually the rating wonks on here agree there was inflation, and
argued for years in favor of sliding-K and other tweaks to re-inflate
the system. They argue amongst themselves on principle.



I remember my first game back after a very long hiatus, 6 years ago. I
was
rated 1667 and my opponent, one of my current H'town buddies who had
topped
2100 in his youth, weighed in at 1999.


Actually this guy peaked in the 2000s but OK...


I'd never before beaten an A-player,
much less one who for most of his playing days up to that time was an
expert.


Actually more like 1900s but we'll go with it.




Well, I beat him. To this day I have his number, having won about 70% of
our
decisive games (20 or so in all). He's the guy I mentioned earlier with
the
1855 rating, by the way.

I will gladly provide names and data to support anything in this post if
you
request it by email. For reasons of personal friendship I prefer not to
do
so in a public forum.

Angelo DePalma


Angelo truly believes in this ratings-centric view of the amateur
chess world, in case you couldn't tell. Stan Booz also strikes me as a
true believer.
I don't get it. Just play the damn game guys.

Regards,

Eric M

"ASCACHESS" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Chess is fun, but it is not life.

Richard Peterson

Amen.

Tom Klem

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...
As for the guy with the heart condition, cut me a break man. I never heard
of anyone having a heart attack because of chess.

North Penn Chess Club had a death during a tournament about a decade ago. An
elderly player suffered a heart attack during a game.

Cecil Purdy died in 1979 while playing. His last words were to the effect
that 'I have a win, but it's going to take time.'

Ludwig Otto Hesse, of Bethlehem, suffered a heart attack in 1923 just prior
to the Allentown-Bethlehem match in the Central Pennsylvania Chess League.
Hesse played against his doctor's orders (the doctor had misdiagnosed the
coronary are "acute indigestion"), won his game, and died about a half-hour
after getting home.

In article , Angelo DePalma says...


Consider this: a pool of 10 players, 5 with established 2000 ratings and 5
unrated.

OK.

They play a bunch of games and the formerly unrateds drop out

This part is irrelevant. Whether they drop out or not has no impact on
deflation.

forever after scoring just 10% against the established guys.

If they were scoring just 10%, the eventual established ratings of the original
unrateds should be around 1625 to 1640. Were they?

The next day
five more unrateds enter, play 1000 games against the rated guys, with the
same result, and drop out forever.

Dropping out is irrelevant.

Do this a bunch of times. Eventually the
formerly 2000-rated guys will be rated close to the average of the entering
unrateds.

Nothing you described would cause this.


This is a case, fairly close to what happens in USCF-land, where deflation
occurs AND aggregate points drop.

Deflation occurs because players improve. It has NOTHING to do with people
leaving the pool.

Aggregate points in the pool is irrelevant EXCEPT to the extent that adding
points to the pool tends to counteract the effects of deflation (i.e. it allows
the deflated players to re-inflate by gaining the excess points.)

Do we know that the total rating points in the system has decreased? I
certainly don't know that to be true.

INFLATION AND aggregate points dropping can happen simultaneously.


Let's say
in our example 2 of the experts win 100% of their games and the unrateds
score some finite number of points.

This example is already nonsensical.


Now let's say after 10 "rounds" of this
silliness EVERYONE drops out except for the two experts who won every game.
Their ratings at this point might be 2150, but the aggregate points have
dropped.

Aggregate points are irrelevant. We've already clearly demonstrated that
aggregate points are not relevant to the discussion.

If the experts both won 100% of their games (an impossibility BTW) then their
ratings SHOULD go up.


The problem with this last scenario is, if the original gang of five were
accurately rated at 2000, why would some lose 10% of their games while the
others don't ever lose any? In real life that doesn't happen.

The argument you are presenting isn't making any sense.


Rather than saying that deflation is caused by a loss of aggregate points,

No one said that. In fact, I specifically said that this statement IS NOT TRUE.

it's more accurate to say that deflation occurs when established rated
players are replaced with inexperienced, unrated players.

This is also not true.

Deflation is caused when a player's rating is less than his actual strength.
Assuming a player is rated 1500 and is 1500 stength, and the player's results
remain static, then if this player encounters an improving player, the 1500 will
suffer deflation, PERIOD.

This has been
happening for decades to USCF, as many here have pointed out (in reference
to other issues).

Many keep pointing this out, and many are still wrong.

Deflation is caused when players improve.


Angelo, try this. Think of the rating system as a scale to measure the entire
pool's strength. If the system is neither inflated or deflated, the scale is
balanced. If it is inflated, then there are more available points than
strength. If it is deflated, there is more available strength than points.

Now assume 4 players are all the same strength. The system has a fixed number
of points in it. Note also that the system has some total "aggregate" strength.

Suddenly, one player gets better. One player therefore has added strength to
the system. Unless we add points to allow us to measure this increase in
strength, this player will take the points from other players, causing them to
deflate. The system will be deflated because there is more total strength than
total points.

PERIOD.

If this player leaves the system, he takes BOTH his strength AND his points with
him, so that the system is still essentially balanced in strength and points.

It is not the aggregate points that is important. It is the relationship of
points to the strength of the system that is important.

Kevin L. Bachler

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:43:19 GMT, "Neil Brennen"
wrote:


"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...
As for the guy with the heart condition, cut me a break man. I never heard
of anyone having a heart attack because of chess.

North Penn Chess Club had a death during a tournament about a decade ago. An
elderly player suffered a heart attack during a game.

Cecil Purdy died in 1979 while playing. His last words were to the effect
that 'I have a win, but it's going to take time.'

Ludwig Otto Hesse, of Bethlehem, suffered a heart attack in 1923 just prior
to the Allentown-Bethlehem match in the Central Pennsylvania Chess League.
Hesse played against his doctor's orders (the doctor had misdiagnosed the
coronary are "acute indigestion"), won his game, and died about a half-hour
after getting home.

I played in the Thailand National Championship in 1990. One of the
players offered a draw and just as his opponent accepted keeled over
dead of a heart attack. Players carried him down the stairs and put
him into a taxi cab to take him to the hospital, but the taxi got
stuck in one of Bangkok's notorious traffice jams and the chess player
was dead on arrival at the hospital.

As I was covering the chess tournament for the daily newspapers, the
Bangkok Post and the Nation, I have always regreted that I did not
write this story for the newspapers. The name of the player was
something like Pappu. His obituary was published in the newspapers and
it was noted that he had played in the finals of the Thai National
Chess Championship many times.

The tournament was won by Win Moe, a Burmese National now living in
the USA.

Sam Sloan

I thought these examples may help.

Think of the strengths of players and the rating system as a balance scale. We
are trying to put enough points on the scale to balance it against the strength
(instead of weight) of the players.

In this sense, it is vaguely like double-entry accounting. The goal is to have
the strength (assets) equal the points (liability & shareholders equity).

With these analogies in mind, consider the following examples. Again, these
clearly show that players leaving the pool do not cause deflation or inflation.
It is the improvement or "worsening" of players that does this.

+++++

Example I:

Player Strength Rating
====== ======== ======
A 1500 1500
B 1600 1600
C 1700 1700
D 1800 1800
----- ==== ====
Total 6600 6600


The system is balanced. No inflation, and no deflation.


Example II:

One player leaves:

Player Strength Rating
====== ======== ======
A 1500 1500
B 1600 1600
D 1800 1800
----- ==== ====
Total 4900 4900

BOTH the aggregate strength of the system AND the aggregate rating of the system
declined. But the system is balanced. No deflation.


Example III:

One player improves, and in unrated games goes from beating players his strength
50% of the time, to beating them 75% of the time, but this player plays no rated
games:

Player Strength Rating
====== ======== ======
A 1700 1500
B 1600 1600
C 1700 1700
D 1800 1800
----- ==== ====
Total 6800 6600


The aggregate strength now exceeds the aggregate rating. So the system is
deflated. It happened because one player improved.


Example IV:

One player improves, and in unrated games goes from beating players his strength
50% of the time, to beating them 75% of the time, but this player plays several
rated games against the pool:

Player Strength Rating
====== ======== ======
A 1700 1725
B 1600 1525
C 1700 1625
D 1800 1725
----- ==== ====
Total 6800 6600

Again, the system is deflated, even though player A is over-rated. Several
players are deflated because their points went to player A.


Example V:

Same as example IV, but add bonus points to correct the system:

Player Strength Rating
====== ======== ======
A 1700 1700
B 1600 1600
C 1700 1700
D 1800 1800
----- ==== ====
Total 6800 6800

The bonus points flow to the underrated players (like a vacuum!) to correct
their ratings.


****

Think of it as weighing plants.

You put 4 plants on a scale. You put weights on the other side equal to the
weight of the plants.

If you take off a plan AND its weights, it is clear that the scale is still
balanced -- i.e. there is no inflation and deflation.

But if you leave all the plants there, AND THEY GROW and get heavier (stronger),
but you don't change the weights, the scale becomes unbalanced -- there are
fewer weights (points) than the actual weight of the plants (strength) and so
the system is DEFLATED.

Kevin L. Bachler