Comments on SonofPearl's Chess Blog: Chess Ratings: A Necessary Evil?

Thanks Chessbumbus! You have a very nice blog too...

2008-10-28T19:58:00.000Z

Thanks Chessbumbus! You have a very nice blog too, so I've added you to my list of favourite blogs.

Cheers!

Hi, You have a nice blog here! I like visiting it!...

2008-10-27T21:45:00.000Z

Hi,

You have a nice blog here! I like visiting it!
I offering you a link exchange - if you accepting it.

My blog:

http://www.chessgambiter.blogspot.com/
Welcome to visit! - Please leave a message if you are OK with the link exchange!

Sandor
Mail: chessbumbus@gmail.com

That's what i wanted to say,it's just that you sai...

2008-09-09T13:15:00.000Z

That's what i wanted to say,it's just that you said it better than me,much better .
I am looking forward to the title match 2 players at on top of their game.
We should get some great games.

I think that it's been well documented that since ...

2008-09-07T20:14:00.000Z

I think that it's been well documented that since the introduction of Elo ratings, there has been a noticeable inflation effect. There are currently 31 players over 2700 on the live rating list. This is crazy! They are all great players, but are they stronger than (say) Spassky at his peak? I certainly don't think so.

As for projecting ratings back in time to the days of Alekhine and Capablanca, I simply don't believe the figures are reliable enough to be meaningful. In reality, I don't think there is ANY way of comparing players from different eras. Ratings only have any merit to compare players of the same era against one another - and even then, the point I'm trying to make is that ratings are totally over-emphasised. What matters is what happens when two players clash over the board. I don't really much care who has the highest rating, but I'm utterly fascinated to see how Vishy and Vlad get on in Bonn!

In the days before ELO chess players knew who was ...

2008-09-07T20:01:00.000Z

In the days before ELO chess players knew who was good,very good,world champion contender not by rating points but playing strenght.
This was gained by tournament or match performances.
In todays chess elo ratings should only be used up to im title level.
After that an im or gm should be able to prove their worth by results.
Of course many would say elo is used to gain titles.
But Fischer,Tal and Spassky did not need elo points to get titles, they gained them through winning srong tournaments.
I once saw a list of past champions Capablanca and Alekhine had ratings of 2700 and 2750 does this mean Carlsen and some of the others players are better than them?
I know its different times but what is the use of comparasons if they dont mean much.
I have been wanting to say that for a long time,thanks.