![[es]](/mwf/v12/flags/es.png "Spain")
"In my opinion the main source of inflation is that newly rated players are receiving ratings that on average are too high, which is basically injecting rating points into the pool."
Jeff Sonas
It looks to me like Mr. Sonas isn't a chess player, or at least, not one who lives in a city plagued with young boys and children. They start playing open rated events shortly after starting their chess lessons, that means they get ratings as low as 1200, but by the time the play a new tournament in which their first rating list is reflected, they have already amassed several hundred ELO points or relative strength. In what sense do they get an initial rating that's "on average are [..] high"?
If this were said by somebody else, I wouldn't care much, but apparently he's managed to get FIDE's ear:
"I have demonstrated in FIDE meetings that a more aggressive (or more conservative) formula for new player ratings will ultimately raise (or lower) everyone’s rating, depending on players’ connectivity within the rating pool."
Just what we need, somebody telling FIDE they should make it harder for young players to get their already appalling low ratings. They have lowered the bar by 1000 points over the years, whit an overall ELO loss of 120 points in the last 4 years alone (as we can see here http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7913).
Specializing tends to make you lose sight of the whole picture.
Jeff Sonas
It looks to me like Mr. Sonas isn't a chess player, or at least, not one who lives in a city plagued with young boys and children. They start playing open rated events shortly after starting their chess lessons, that means they get ratings as low as 1200, but by the time the play a new tournament in which their first rating list is reflected, they have already amassed several hundred ELO points or relative strength. In what sense do they get an initial rating that's "on average are [..] high"?
If this were said by somebody else, I wouldn't care much, but apparently he's managed to get FIDE's ear:
"I have demonstrated in FIDE meetings that a more aggressive (or more conservative) formula for new player ratings will ultimately raise (or lower) everyone’s rating, depending on players’ connectivity within the rating pool."
Just what we need, somebody telling FIDE they should make it harder for young players to get their already appalling low ratings. They have lowered the bar by 1000 points over the years, whit an overall ELO loss of 120 points in the last 4 years alone (as we can see here http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7913).
Specializing tends to make you lose sight of the whole picture.
![[il]](/mwf/v12/flags/il.png "Israel")
I totally agree with you that often the rating of young players is too low but I think that the main reason for it is that not all events are calculated for fide rating so it happens that a player play one tournament for fide rating and get initial fide rating of 1400 and play the next tournament for fide rating only 1 or 2 years later.
Note that I do not believe that there is a rating inflation and I think that players simply improve.
I think that the fair thing should be to have a computer with constant rating in some competition(at level near fide rating 2000 when the computer is not going to be deterministic so people will not be able to use the same method to beat it again and again) and decide that we adjust every year the rating of all players based on the results of the computer so the computer is going to have the same rating in the beginning of every year(the constant rating that the computer get is going to be the rating that it gets after the first year).
The computer should play hundreds of games per year(otherwise there is going to be too much luck in the performance of the computer) but I think there should be no problem to use the same computer in some competitions that happen in the same time so I think that there should be no problem to have 300 computer-human games per year.
Note that I do not believe that there is a rating inflation and I think that players simply improve.
I think that the fair thing should be to have a computer with constant rating in some competition(at level near fide rating 2000 when the computer is not going to be deterministic so people will not be able to use the same method to beat it again and again) and decide that we adjust every year the rating of all players based on the results of the computer so the computer is going to have the same rating in the beginning of every year(the constant rating that the computer get is going to be the rating that it gets after the first year).
The computer should play hundreds of games per year(otherwise there is going to be too much luck in the performance of the computer) but I think there should be no problem to use the same computer in some competitions that happen in the same time so I think that there should be no problem to have 300 computer-human games per year.
That's a wonderful idea, but as is often the case, try selling it to the masses 
As for the low rating of young players, the scenario you describe applies better to some grown-ups in my city. Youngsters play ALL the time, they have tournaments were they practice among themselves every week (and I mean every weekend) and don't miss a chance to mingle with the rest of us in open tournaments.
As for the low rating of young players, the scenario you describe applies better to some grown-ups in my city. Youngsters play ALL the time, they have tournaments were they practice among themselves every week (and I mean every weekend) and don't miss a chance to mingle with the rest of us in open tournaments.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill