|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Благодаря Эригайси, сумевшему всё же выкарабкаться из трясины, число семисотников на 1 июня 2023 упало не до 32-х, а "только" до 33-х. Все равно эта цифра возвращает нас даже не к январю 2010 (когда в последний раз семисотников было 34), а аж в 2009-ый (тогда их насчитывалось в течение года от 31 до 35)
Но такого, чтобы за раз (за один рейтинг-лист) число семисотников снижалось сразу на 6 человек, по-моему, не случалось вообще никогда. То есть, бывало, что разом опускалось ниже 2700 и поболее, но одновременно сколько-то и поднималось. В июне 2023 ни одного "поднявшегося" не оказалось.
(А вот кто спустился: Эльянов, Каймер, Дяк, Робсон, Артемьев, Сюгиров)
И теперь тех, которые от 2700 на расстоянии "одной партии, выигранной у Карлсена" (plotkin) почти что два десятка! То есть, теперь "движение вверх заметно вероятнее" - ну, посмотрим, посмотрим. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31273 |
|
|
|
|
Почитатель: Благодаря Эригайси, сумевшему всё же выкарабкаться из трясины, число семисотников на 1 июня 2023 упало не до 32-х, а "только" до 33-х. Все равно эта цифра возвращает нас даже не к январю 2010 (когда в последний раз семисотников было 34), а аж в 2009-ый (тогда их насчитывалось в течение года от 31 до 35)
Но такого, чтобы за раз (за один рейтинг-лист) число семисотников снижалось сразу на 6 человек, по-моему, не случалось вообще никогда. То есть, бывало, что разом опускалось ниже 2700 и поболее, но одновременно сколько-то и поднималось. В июне 2023 ни одного "поднявшегося" не оказалось.
(А вот кто спустился: Эльянов, Каймер, Дяк, Робсон, Артемьев, Сюгиров)
И теперь тех, которые от 2700 на расстоянии "одной партии, выигранной у Карлсена" (plotkin) почти что два десятка! То есть, теперь "движение вверх заметно вероятнее" - ну, посмотрим, посмотрим. |
Согласен с вашим последним абзацем.
Просто ради интереса - попробую предсказать тех, кто войдет в 2700 к началу 2025 года.
1. Sevian
2. Shevchenko
3. Deac
4. Keymer
5. Praggnanandhaa
6. Niemann
7. Sarana
8. Sarin
9. Sindarov
А теперь тех, кто уйдет оттуда
1. Van Foreest
2. Harikrishna
3. Valejo
4. Shankland
5. Vidit
И еще трое, если будут активно играть или, наоборот, не играть совсем
6. Le
7. Topalov
8. Wang Hao |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31274 |
|
|
|
|
| Обида на Ле понятна, но почему нет веры в Видита? |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31275 |
|
|
|
|
| LateSpring: Обида на Ле понятна, но почему нет веры в Видита? |
Да что вы, никакой обиды. Очень приятный персонаж. Да и партия в целом неплохая (последний Гибралтар, одна из моих ММ норм). Просто объективная оценка. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31276 |
|
|
|
|
plotkin:
Просто ради интереса - попробую предсказать тех, кто войдет в 2700 к началу 2025 года.
|
Умеют же люди смотреть далеко вперед, мне такого не дано.
P.S.
Ван Форест может вернуться в 2700 буквально в следующем официальном листе, но пока он ниже. Играет сейчас (среди прочих - и Топалов тоже) во французской лиге.
А Видит - тоже между прочим (у нас в Хронике об этом не было сказано) - играет сейчас матч со Свидлером. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31278 |
|
|
|
|
В Ставангере случился переворот в верхах. Не на самом верху - до этого далеко - но на законную вторую строчку Каруаны нежданно-негаданно выскочил Накамура, причем - всего лишь во второй раз в жизни (и спустя 7 лет 9 месяцев после первого).
Однако в этот раз Накамура на второй строчке задержится. По крайней мере до сентября: в топ-классике наступило полуторамесячное затишье перед Кубком мира. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31307 |
|
|
|
|
Рейтинг Карлсена после первого пика в 2014-м и после второго в 2019-м
  |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31308 |
|
|
|
|
Почитатель:
И теперь тех, которые от 2700 на расстоянии "одной партии, выигранной у Карлсена" (plotkin) почти что два десятка! То есть, теперь "движение вверх заметно вероятнее" - ну, посмотрим, посмотрим. |
Артемьев в Сингапуре, Ван Форест во французской лиге и Бу в китайской - в июне ну очень старались двинуться вверх и в какой-то момент каждый из них пересекал 2700 "в лайве". Но нет, в итоге ни один не преуспел. Останемся и 1 июля при 33-х семисотниках. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31312 |
|
|
|
|
Вторая молодость Накамуры.
Про Ананда молчим. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31381 |
|
|
|
|
Из июльского листа
35 партий сыграны Ниманном за 33 дня - с 27.05 по 28.06. Первые восемь (с 9-го тура снялся) в Дубаи-опен, затем перелёт через океан - и три опена в США подряд.
И продолжает - сейчас играет четвертый, World Open. Заканчивается 4 июля, и всего на счету Ниманна, считая с 11 апреля (Менорка - Казахстан - Баку - Шарджа), окажется 9 турниров подряд и 79 партий за 85 дней.
Дальше - неизвестно, на юниорский чемпионат США не позвали: видимо, вышел из возраста. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31382 |
|
|
|
|
Похоже, дефляции скоро настанет конец. Из поста Эмиля Сутовского на ФБ
ФИДЕ публикует рекомендацию известного статистика Джефа Сонаса и квалификационной комиссии на основе трехмесячного анализа данных.
Предлагаемые изменения достаточно радикальны и включают существенное добавление рейтинга всем игрокам в диапазоне 1000-2000, поднятие минимального рейтинга до 1400, и иные детали.
Поскольку изменения очень существенны, мы решили инициировать общественную дискуссию, и дать возможность высказаться представителям самых разных пластов шахматного сообщества.
Пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с предложениями (линк в комменте)
https://www.fide.com/docs/presentations/Sonas%20Proposal%20-%20Repairing%20the%20FIDE%20Standard%20Elo%20Rating%20System.pdf |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31461 |
|
|
|
|
| plotkin: Похоже, дефляции скоро настанет конец. |
И настанет начало инфляции - как считает Роджер. Или не настанет? |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31462 |
|
|
|
|
| Почитатель: Это событие надо отметить |
Достижение Гукеша следует отметить особо, поскольку вступление в Клуб 2750 с недавних пор стало редкостью и уже случается не каждый год. После Фирузджи (который быстрым транзитом проследовал вообще в Клуб восьмисотников) ждать пришлось больше двух лет.
Да и до Фирузджи (после Дуды) прошло больше года.
Теперь Гукеш становится 48-ым членом клуба.
(И одновременно его соотечественник Прагганандхаа - 134-ым членом Клуба 2700, но об этом после)
Как уже было сказано, Гукеш побил рекорд Карлсена, достигнув рубежа 2750 в 17 лет 2 месяца. Если после Кубка Мира войдет в Топ-10 (а ведь может!), то превзойдет Карлсена и в этом (на 1 месяц раньше).
Правда, вечному рекорду юного Гаты Камского ничто не угрожает. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31469 |
|
|
|
|
Почитатель: | plotkin: Похоже, дефляции скоро настанет конец. |
И настанет начало инфляции - как считает Роджер. Или не настанет? |
За долгосрочные прогнозы я не берусь, оценивал только краткосрочный ограниченный эффект от первой меры. Кстати, ФИДЕ, сидящая на всех данных, вполне может всё это промоделировать.
Меня лично интересует не столько абсолютное значение рейтинга, сколько возможное похудение рейтинг-лист (за счёт отпадения дна), и то, как это похудение отразится на количестве турниров, подаваемых на обсчёт. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31470 |
|
|
|
|
plotkin: | LateSpring: Обида на Ле понятна, но почему нет веры в Видита? |
Да что вы, никакой обиды. Очень приятный персонаж. Да и партия в целом неплохая (последний Гибралтар, одна из моих ММ норм). Просто объективная оценка. |
Тем временем Ле обновил в Биле личный рекорд. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31473 |
|
|
|
|
Почитатель: | Почитатель: Это событие надо отметить |
Достижение Гукеша следует отметить особо, поскольку вступление в Клуб 2750 с недавних пор стало редкостью и уже случается не каждый год. После Фирузджи (который быстрым транзитом проследовал вообще в Клуб восьмисотников) ждать пришлось больше двух лет.
Да и до Фирузджи (после Дуды) прошло больше года.
Теперь Гукеш становится 48-ым членом клуба.
(И одновременно его соотечественник Прагганандхаа - 134-ым членом Клуба 2700, но об этом после)
Как уже было сказано, Гукеш побил рекорд Карлсена, достигнув рубежа 2750 в 17 лет 2 месяца. Если после Кубка Мира войдет в Топ-10 (а ведь может!), то превзойдет Карлсена и в этом (на 1 месяц раньше).
Правда, вечному рекорду юного Гаты Камского ничто не угрожает. |
BOLT что означает в картинке? |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31475 |
|
|
|
|
| Действующие (актуальные) члены "Клуба 2750" (на 01.08.2023) |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31476 |
|
|
|
|
Из моего письма:
The FIDE recently published the recommendations of mathematician Jeff Sonas and of the qualification committee. The proposed changes are very radical and making those changes would involve giving many players hundreds of rating points and raising the minimal FIDE rating to 1400, among numerous other additions.
The full text of Sonas' proposal can be found here:
https://www.fide.com/docs/presentations/Sonas%20Proposal%20-%20Repairing%20the%20FIDE%20Standard%20Elo%20Rating%20System.pdf
I would like to express my point of view about the whole situation with FIDE ratings and about the proposed changes.
1. The rating situation – an extensive period of deflation
In the chess world, starting from 2014, ratings have been deflating. The deflationary wave, which started from the bottom of the chess pyramid, is climbing upwards and has been experienced by all players, including the elite (2700+).
The reason for the change in trend (inflation to deflation) was the FIDE's reform in 2014, when nearly every player was given a rating and a rating minimum of 1000 was created. A ton of players, mostly kids, were added to the rating pool.
The rating trajectory of many young players looks something like: initially earning a rating of a bit higher than 1000 (let's say 1100), playing for a few years, boosting their rating by a few hundred rating points (perhaps to 1700), and subsequently quitting chess towards the end of their teenage years, unfortunately often permanently. As these players leave the game, they also take with them the hundreds of rating points they gained throughout their careers (would be 600 in my example).
Differing K-factors smooth this effect, which is why the FIDE wisely instituted 3 K-factors in 2014. To be clear, they smooth this change, but they do not erase deflation nor get rid of its causes.
As such, it can be said that deflationary pressures are tied to the very nature of the chess pyramid and its growth. Therefore, monitoring rating trends and responding to them with lasting changes when necessary is certainly desirable for the FIDE.
Unfortunately, the FIDE didn't notice the sufficiently obvious deflationary trend for quite a while. Furthermore, the rule change from January 1, 2022 only increased the rate of rating deflation and made the deflation reach the upper levels of the chess pyramid faster. The change was that if a player plays multiple games against opponents with a >400 rating difference in one tournament, only 1 of those games is adjusted to a 400 point difference. Previously, the rating changes as a result of all such games were done as though the rating difference between players were 400 points, and not greater.
a. Deflation and the elite
The deflationary wave did not reach the chess elite immediately, rather a few years after 2014. Let's try to analyze the deflation of the elite's ratings by creating a number E, which represents the sum of the differences between all ratings above 2700 and 2700. For instance, Carlsen's current rating is 2835, meaning that he adds 135 points to the count, while a player with a rating of 2700 adds exactly 0. I think that E sets up a rather informative indicator for how rating deflation has affected the chess elite; this is better than, say, counting the number of players whose ratings exceed 2700.
Here's how E has looked at the start of each year since 2015:
2015 - 1895
2016 - 1864
2017 - 1934
2018 - 1941
2019 - 1810
2020 - 1760
2022 - 1559
2023 - 1483
Based on live ratings, E is now 1407.
E does not include the ratings of inactive chess players such as Kasparov and Kramnik.
Clearly, E reached its peak by 2018 and has since dropped more than 500 points, which is representative of 12 points for each 2700+ rated player on average. It would be logical to propose that without administrative measures the deflationary trend would continue at a rate of 3-4 points lost per elite player each year.
At lower levels, the deflationary pressure is even stronger and has indubitably been felt after the reforms of 2014, and not after 2018 as was the case for the elite.
b. COVID-19
The pandemic-related two-year-long lack of tournaments put additional pressure onto the rating system. Young players became significantly stronger over 2 years, but their ratings remained unchanged. After most restrictions were lifted in 2022, the young players rapidly began taking rating points from the higher rated and generally older players.
This effect has likely dissipated over the last 1.5 years and the afflicted generation has been able to maintain an adequate rating reflecting their current level of play.
c. Deflation – not the only problem. Elo tables no longer reflect reality
Of the tables that Jeff Sonas cites in his proposal, the most interesting are the ones that compare data for the years 2008-2012, when no one was aware of deflation yet because there was, in fact, rating inflation. We can see from that table that lower rated players had a statistical advantage in terms of expecting rating changes in games with higher rated opponents. The difference ranged from 2% (100 point difference) to 7-8% (400 point difference).
Since 2021, the expected rating change per game reached a difference of 15% between different ratings, according to the table. This is a seriously large amount.
Many experienced chess players remember the main coefficients of the Elo tables. For instance,
0.64 - expected performance then playing against someone that is 100 points lower rated
0.76 - 200 point rating difference
0.92 - 400 point rating difference
In reality, even during the inflationary period, the number 0.62, 0.72, and 0.85 more accurately and fairly represent rating change expectations.
We all respect Professor Arpad Elo. His work and data created the basis of the rating rules that the FIDE has been based on for over 50 years. There's no doubt that in 1970, Elo's tables perfectly reflected reality.
However, this was a long time ago, when the rating range was 500 points, from 2200 to 2700. Now the rating range is greater than 1800 points (1000-2800+), and even if Sonas' proposal is accepted, the range will be 1400 points (1400-2800). This is 3 to 3.5 times greater than before. Of course, it comes as no surprise that there are significant differences between rating data from today and that from 50 years ago.
2. The solution
Sonas' proposed reforms will result in great shifts in rating for a huge number of chess players and this will decrease confidence in the rating system, which is a key asset for the FIDE. Sonas proposes extremely harsh measures to deal with long-standing problems that could be solved via much more conventional means. The proposal forgoes one of the key principles of rating – it can be changed only at the chess board. I'd imagine that the FIDE should aim to minimize instances of direct interference. Mathematically speaking, it's illogical to change the value of a function, when it would suffice to simply change the rules of calculating the derivative.
Of course, like in medicine, there are moments when the use of more severe measures is most apt. In this case, however, the relatively calm deflation clearly is not representative of such an instance. The deflation has lasted for only 5 years among the elite, after a much longer and more significant period of inflation. The number E that I defined earlier ranged from 0-30 at the end of the 1970s, when Fischer had quit chess and this number depended on Karpov's rating, given that he was the only 2700+ rated player at the time.
Nonetheless, some changes are necessary and should, alongside combating deflation, help adapt the tables of Elo to today's reality.
My proposals:
a. Modifying Elo's tables.
Instead of 0.64, 0.76, 0.92 (corresponding to rating differences of 100, 200, and 400 points between opponents), I propose 0.62, 0.72, and 0.85. This means decreasing the expected result of a chess player with a higher rating by 2%, 4%, and 7% respectively. Of course, the rest of the numbers in Elo's tables would be modified accordingly.
This change would largely halt rating deflation among the elite. If, say, Carlsen were to play 50 games a year against opponents with an average rating difference of 100 points, his rating would increase by 10 points a year. Instead of receiving 3.6 rating points (0.36 x 10) per win, he now receives 3.8, loses 1.2 instead of 1.4 in a draw, and loses 6.2 instead of 6.4 when he loses. The total of this, under these circumstances, is 10 points.
For weaker players, the effects of this change will be less significant, but the impacts will be felt at least by players rated above 2400, who play the majority of their games against weaker opponents, and would therefore gain rating as a result of this change.
Another positive effect of this modification is that stronger players' fears of entering tournaments where there are many weaker players will largely disappear. Currently, many strong players aim to minimize their participation in tournaments with a large rating range, which results in such tournaments becoming even weaker. In North America, for example, many large tournaments have significantly lower average ratings than was the case 10 years ago.
For the last several years, the common, and correct, view has been that it is far easier to gain rating against strong players. Is this fair though? For instance, a chess player rated 2000 could consistently crush opponents rated 1800, while another 2000-rated player may be able to snag quite a few points off an opponent rated 2200. Recently, the latter player would be deemed better and was rewarded more. Why is this? There must be, at least roughly, symmetry in this way, and a player's ability to get a ton of points against lower-rated opponents must be adequately rewarded.
b. Fully bringing back the 400-point rule, but making it 500.
In accordance with my proposition to modify Elo's tables, 0.9 would be the coefficient for a 500 point rating difference. No matter how many games a stronger player plays against those more than 500 points weaker than them, they should get at least 1 rating point when they win (2 points when K-factor is 20 and 4 points when K-factor is 40).
Proposals a and b would stop deflation among strong players and get rid of a key flaw of Elo's tables, referring to the fact that the coefficients he provided no longer correspond with reality. Those in the middle of the chess pyramid would neither profit nor suffer, but those at the lower levels would lose rating. Two further proposals will help deal with deflation at the middle and lower levels.
c. Changing how a player's first FIDE rating is calculated
Jeff Sonas' proposal about changing players' first FIDE rating (adding two draws against 1800 to the count) seems completely logical and would help deal with deflation at the bottom of the pyramid. Jeff suggested specifically 1800 because he also proposed that 1400 become the lowest rating a player could have. I proposed that 1000 remains the minimal rating. Accordingly, 1500 or 1400 should replace the proposed 1800 for a similar effect. I would like to point out that adding these two draws against 1400 or 1500 to a player's initial rating should only be applied for players whose initial ratings would increase as a result.
To some extent, this proposal does violate the principle of fairness, artificially increasing one's first rating, but this could, in my opinion, be considered as a sort of rating advance to often young, new players.
Of course, changing the way in which one's first rating is calculated will not immediately stop rating deflation, but the effects will be felt soon enough. Moreover, this benefits specifically the lower levels of the chess pyramid sooner and more than those stronger than them.
d. Rounding ratings monthly upwards
The FIDE calculates changes in rating to the tenth of a point, while up-to-date official ratings, published once a month, are rounded to the nearest point. 0.5 is rounded in the direction of the last rating change, i.e 1700.5 becomes 1701 if the player's rating grew over the last month and 1700 if it fell.
I propose that ratings always be rounded upwards for players rated |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31478 |
|
|
|
|
| Почитатель: Действующие (актуальные) члены "Клуба 2750" (на 01.08.2023) |
Искал болт на картинке, не нашел - расстроился. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31479 |
|
|
|
|
plotkin: Из моего письма:
The FIDE recently published the recommendations of mathematician Jeff Sonas and of the qualification committee. The proposed changes are very radical and making those changes would involve giving many players hundreds of rating points and raising the minimal FIDE rating to 1400, among numerous other additions.
The full text of Sonas' proposal can be found here:
https://www.fide.com/docs/presentations/Sonas%20Proposal%20-%20Repairing%20the%20FIDE%20Standard%20Elo%20Rating%20System.pdf
I would like to express my point of view about the whole situation with FIDE ratings and about the proposed changes.
1. The rating situation – an extensive period of deflation
In the chess world, starting from 2014, ratings have been deflating. The deflationary wave, which started from the bottom of the chess pyramid, is climbing upwards and has been experienced by all players, including the elite (2700+).
The reason for the change in trend (inflation to deflation) was the FIDE's reform in 2014, when nearly every player was given a rating and a rating minimum of 1000 was created. A ton of players, mostly kids, were added to the rating pool.
The rating trajectory of many young players looks something like: initially earning a rating of a bit higher than 1000 (let's say 1100), playing for a few years, boosting their rating by a few hundred rating points (perhaps to 1700), and subsequently quitting chess towards the end of their teenage years, unfortunately often permanently. As these players leave the game, they also take with them the hundreds of rating points they gained throughout their careers (would be 600 in my example).
Differing K-factors smooth this effect, which is why the FIDE wisely instituted 3 K-factors in 2014. To be clear, they smooth this change, but they do not erase deflation nor get rid of its causes.
As such, it can be said that deflationary pressures are tied to the very nature of the chess pyramid and its growth. Therefore, monitoring rating trends and responding to them with lasting changes when necessary is certainly desirable for the FIDE.
Unfortunately, the FIDE didn't notice the sufficiently obvious deflationary trend for quite a while. Furthermore, the rule change from January 1, 2022 only increased the rate of rating deflation and made the deflation reach the upper levels of the chess pyramid faster. The change was that if a player plays multiple games against opponents with a >400 rating difference in one tournament, only 1 of those games is adjusted to a 400 point difference. Previously, the rating changes as a result of all such games were done as though the rating difference between players were 400 points, and not greater.
a. Deflation and the elite
The deflationary wave did not reach the chess elite immediately, rather a few years after 2014. Let's try to analyze the deflation of the elite's ratings by creating a number E, which represents the sum of the differences between all ratings above 2700 and 2700. For instance, Carlsen's current rating is 2835, meaning that he adds 135 points to the count, while a player with a rating of 2700 adds exactly 0. I think that E sets up a rather informative indicator for how rating deflation has affected the chess elite; this is better than, say, counting the number of players whose ratings exceed 2700.
Here's how E has looked at the start of each year since 2015:
2015 - 1895
2016 - 1864
2017 - 1934
2018 - 1941
2019 - 1810
2020 - 1760
2022 - 1559
2023 - 1483
Based on live ratings, E is now 1407.
E does not include the ratings of inactive chess players such as Kasparov and Kramnik.
Clearly, E reached its peak by 2018 and has since dropped more than 500 points, which is representative of 12 points for each 2700+ rated player on average. It would be logical to propose that without administrative measures the deflationary trend would continue at a rate of 3-4 points lost per elite player each year.
At lower levels, the deflationary pressure is even stronger and has indubitably been felt after the reforms of 2014, and not after 2018 as was the case for the elite.
b. COVID-19
The pandemic-related two-year-long lack of tournaments put additional pressure onto the rating system. Young players became significantly stronger over 2 years, but their ratings remained unchanged. After most restrictions were lifted in 2022, the young players rapidly began taking rating points from the higher rated and generally older players.
This effect has likely dissipated over the last 1.5 years and the afflicted generation has been able to maintain an adequate rating reflecting their current level of play.
c. Deflation – not the only problem. Elo tables no longer reflect reality
Of the tables that Jeff Sonas cites in his proposal, the most interesting are the ones that compare data for the years 2008-2012, when no one was aware of deflation yet because there was, in fact, rating inflation. We can see from that table that lower rated players had a statistical advantage in terms of expecting rating changes in games with higher rated opponents. The difference ranged from 2% (100 point difference) to 7-8% (400 point difference).
Since 2021, the expected rating change per game reached a difference of 15% between different ratings, according to the table. This is a seriously large amount.
Many experienced chess players remember the main coefficients of the Elo tables. For instance,
0.64 - expected performance then playing against someone that is 100 points lower rated
0.76 - 200 point rating difference
0.92 - 400 point rating difference
In reality, even during the inflationary period, the number 0.62, 0.72, and 0.85 more accurately and fairly represent rating change expectations.
We all respect Professor Arpad Elo. His work and data created the basis of the rating rules that the FIDE has been based on for over 50 years. There's no doubt that in 1970, Elo's tables perfectly reflected reality.
However, this was a long time ago, when the rating range was 500 points, from 2200 to 2700. Now the rating range is greater than 1800 points (1000-2800+), and even if Sonas' proposal is accepted, the range will be 1400 points (1400-2800). This is 3 to 3.5 times greater than before. Of course, it comes as no surprise that there are significant differences between rating data from today and that from 50 years ago.
2. The solution
Sonas' proposed reforms will result in great shifts in rating for a huge number of chess players and this will decrease confidence in the rating system, which is a key asset for the FIDE. Sonas proposes extremely harsh measures to deal with long-standing problems that could be solved via much more conventional means. The proposal forgoes one of the key principles of rating – it can be changed only at the chess board. I'd imagine that the FIDE should aim to minimize instances of direct interference. Mathematically speaking, it's illogical to change the value of a function, when it would suffice to simply change the rules of calculating the derivative.
Of course, like in medicine, there are moments when the use of more severe measures is most apt. In this case, however, the relatively calm deflation clearly is not representative of such an instance. The deflation has lasted for only 5 years among the elite, after a much longer and more significant period of inflation. The number E that I defined earlier ranged from 0-30 at the end of the 1970s, when Fischer had quit chess and this number depended on Karpov's rating, given that he was the only 2700+ rated player at the time.
Nonetheless, some changes are necessary and should, alongside combating deflation, help adapt the tables of Elo to today's reality.
My proposals:
a. Modifying Elo's tables.
Instead of 0.64, 0.76, 0.92 (corresponding to rating differences of 100, 200, and 400 points between opponents), I propose 0.62, 0.72, and 0.85. This means decreasing the expected result of a chess player with a higher rating by 2%, 4%, and 7% respectively. Of course, the rest of the numbers in Elo's tables would be modified accordingly.
This change would largely halt rating deflation among the elite. If, say, Carlsen were to play 50 games a year against opponents with an average rating difference of 100 points, his rating would increase by 10 points a year. Instead of receiving 3.6 rating points (0.36 x 10) per win, he now receives 3.8, loses 1.2 instead of 1.4 in a draw, and loses 6.2 instead of 6.4 when he loses. The total of this, under these circumstances, is 10 points.
For weaker players, the effects of this change will be less significant, but the impacts will be felt at least by players rated above 2400, who play the majority of their games against weaker opponents, and would therefore gain rating as a result of this change.
Another positive effect of this modification is that stronger players' fears of entering tournaments where there are many weaker players will largely disappear. Currently, many strong players aim to minimize their participation in tournaments with a large rating range, which results in such tournaments becoming even weaker. In North America, for example, many large tournaments have significantly lower average ratings than was the case 10 years ago.
For the last several years, the common, and correct, view has been that it is far easier to gain rating against strong players. Is this fair though? For instance, a chess player rated 2000 could consistently crush opponents rated 1800, while another 2000-rated player may be able to snag quite a few points off an opponent rated 2200. Recently, the latter player would be deemed better and was rewarded more. Why is this? There must be, at least roughly, symmetry in this way, and a player's ability to get a ton of points against lower-rated opponents must be adequately rewarded.
b. Fully bringing back the 400-point rule, but making it 500.
In accordance with my proposition to modify Elo's tables, 0.9 would be the coefficient for a 500 point rating difference. No matter how many games a stronger player plays against those more than 500 points weaker than them, they should get at least 1 rating point when they win (2 points when K-factor is 20 and 4 points when K-factor is 40).
Proposals a and b would stop deflation among strong players and get rid of a key flaw of Elo's tables, referring to the fact that the coefficients he provided no longer correspond with reality. Those in the middle of the chess pyramid would neither profit nor suffer, but those at the lower levels would lose rating. Two further proposals will help deal with deflation at the middle and lower levels.
c. Changing how a player's first FIDE rating is calculated
Jeff Sonas' proposal about changing players' first FIDE rating (adding two draws against 1800 to the count) seems completely logical and would help deal with deflation at the bottom of the pyramid. Jeff suggested specifically 1800 because he also proposed that 1400 become the lowest rating a player could have. I proposed that 1000 remains the minimal rating. Accordingly, 1500 or 1400 should replace the proposed 1800 for a similar effect. I would like to point out that adding these two draws against 1400 or 1500 to a player's initial rating should only be applied for players whose initial ratings would increase as a result.
To some extent, this proposal does violate the principle of fairness, artificially increasing one's first rating, but this could, in my opinion, be considered as a sort of rating advance to often young, new players.
Of course, changing the way in which one's first rating is calculated will not immediately stop rating deflation, but the effects will be felt soon enough. Moreover, this benefits specifically the lower levels of the chess pyramid sooner and more than those stronger than them.
d. Rounding ratings monthly upwards
The FIDE calculates changes in rating to the tenth of a point, while up-to-date official ratings, published once a month, are rounded to the nearest point. 0.5 is rounded in the direction of the last rating change, i.e 1700.5 becomes 1701 if the player's rating grew over the last month and 1700 if it fell.
I propose that ratings always be rounded upwards for players rated |
Your proposals are better. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31480 |
|
|
|
|
| Может, чисто для профилактики, ограничить суммарную годовую прибавку за победы при разнице 500+ каким нибудь символическим числом. 50, например? |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31481 |
|
|
|
|
| Кажется, рекордный размер цитаты. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31482 |
|
|
|
|
То, что я понял из этого текста (а я, будучи нематематиком, конечно, понял далеко не всё), полностью совпадает с интуитивными представлениями практиков. Уже упоминал, что гроссмейстер Улыбин в точности так диагностировал ситуацию в беседе с тогдашним президентом АШФ Сутовским ещё в 2015 году, спустя всего год после реформы 2014 года. Любопытно, что, будучи не большим математиком, чем я, он также призывал к изменению рейтинговых интервалов.
То, что коллега Плоткин является одновременно практиком и математиком, бесценно. Именно такие люди должны заниматься реформой рейтинговой системы. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31483 |
|
|
|
|
plotkin:
Из моего письма: |
По существу предложений ничего сказать не могу, разумеется (это даже не "к сожалению" - просто не моего ума дело, как всем должно быть известно)
Но изложение аргументации очень понравилось. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31486 |
|
|
|
|
Соблюдаем порядок, отмечаем вступление в Клуб 2700 Прагганандхаа (под номером 134)
 |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31497 |
|
|
|
|
А в списке добравшихся до 2700 в юниорском возрасте Прагг становится 26-ым по счету
 |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31498 |
|
|
|
|
Ладно, соблюдаем)
 |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31499 |
|
|
|
|
Да, Прагг (я уже повторяюсь) вообще поспешает медленно. Не Фирузджа, и не Гукеш.
При этом по "прогрессу" за прошлый год уступил только Гукешу. Но тогда целая компания молодежи преодолела 2700, а он - только сейчас. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31501 |
|
|
|
|
Не сразу заметил отсутствие в Топ-100 Раджабова. 12 месяцев без единой партии и - "неактивен". На один только, месяц, правда.
В результате, с учетом "спуска" Ван Хао, подвиг Прагга и возвращение в 2700 Сюгирова и Каймера привели к увеличению числа семисотников в августе всего на единицу. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31502 |
|
|
|
|
Подведу промежуточные итоги своего прогноза. Всего 2.5 месяца прошло.
Просто ради интереса - попробую предсказать тех, кто войдет в 2700 к началу 2025 года.
1. Sevian
2. Shevchenko
3. Deac
4. Keymer
5. Praggnanandhaa
6. Niemann
7. Sarana
8. Sarin
9. Sindarov
А теперь тех, кто уйдет оттуда
1. Van Foreest
2. Harikrishna
3. Valejo
4. Shankland
5. Vidit
И еще трое, если будут активно играть или, наоборот, не играть совсем
6. Le
7. Topalov
8. Wang Hao
Из первой группы - 3 уже вошли (Deac, Praggnanandhaa,Keymer), причем двое последних достаточно уверенно. 3 на расстоянии одной партии от 2700 (Sevian, Sarana, Sarin). Shevchenko & Niemann пока совсем не там, а Синдарова я брал изначально "на вырост".
Из кандидатов на вылет справились с задачей Van Foreest and Shankland, правда, пока не слишком уверенно. Ван Хао неожиданно потерял очень много.
Будем наблюдать. |
|
|
| номер сообщения: 150-9-31530 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copyright chesspro.ru 2004-2024 гг. |
|
|
|
