Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
reprinted today.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
Professor Elo's book long out of print and almost impossible to obtain
has just been reprinted, with a foreward by Sam Sloan.
On Apr 24, 8:30 am, samsloan <samhsl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> TheRatingofChessPlayers, Past & Present by ArpadElo
>
> Introduction
>
> ArpadElowas one of the giants of the World ofChess. Born in 1903,
> he got off to a slow start, learning the rules ofchessby reading the
> Encyclopedia Britannica in his high school library. By 1935, he was
> Wisconsin State Champion, a title he won eight times.
>
> In 1939, ArpadElowas one of the seven founding members of the United
> StatesChessFederation. His signature is on the original USCF
> cor****ate charter, dated December 27, 1939.
>
> In the late-1930s, the firstchessratingsystem was developed by the
> CorrespondenceChessLeague of America. In the early 1940s,Chess
> Review magazine developed a system for its postalchessprogram.
> Kenneth Harkness was the managing editor ofChessReview and, after he
> left in 1948, he spent two years developing aratingsystem for over
> the board play.
>
> The original Harkness System forms the starting point for
allchessratingsystems used in the world today. Under the original Harkness
> System, every player who got an even score of 6-6 in the US Open of
> was assigned aratingof 2000. The ratings of otherplayerswere
> calculated from that starting point.Playersabove 2100 were experts
> andplayersabove 2300 were masters.
>
> Harkness unveiled his system in 1950. The first NationalChessRating
> List was published in the December 1950 issue ofChessReview
> magazine, page 354. The first list covered 2306playersand 582
> tournaments covering a 30 year period ending on July 31, 1950.
>
> Almost from the start, there were problems. In the early lists,
> everybody'sratingwent down as new improvingplayerstookrating
> points away from the older establishedplayers. By 1956, the standards
> had to be reduced. The requirement for expert was dropped to 2000 and
> the requirement for master was dropped to 2200. It remains there
> today.
>
> In 1957, Kenneth Harkness published his book, The Blue Book
> Encyclopedia ofChess, which has recently been reprinted, which
> explained hisratingsystem in detail.
>
> In the late 1950s, a new crisis arose with the rise of Bobby Fischer.
> Under the Harkness System, if a player lost a game to a much lower
> rated player, he could lose as much as 70 or 80ratingpoints in that
> one game. Also, there were long intervals betweenratinglists, at
> least six months sometimes as long as one year. A player'sratingwas
> only updated when the new list came out. Thus, if a player was rated
> 1700, he was considered still to be rated 1700 until the next list
> came out and the gains and losses of the ratings of his opponents were
> calculated on that basis.
>
> During this period, theratingof Bobby Fischer rose from 1700 to 2400
> in only two years. Every time Fischer, rated 1700, beat an expert
> rated 2000, the higher rated player lost about 80ratingpoints in
> that one game. This caused a lot ofplayersto become upset at losing
> all theseratingpoints, especially after it became apparent that
> Fischer was really a grandmaster, and not a Class B player. There were
> bitter complaints about this.
>
> In 1959, USCF President Jerry Spann appointed a committee headed by
> ArpadEloto study theratingsystem and make recommendations to
> change the system to avoid the decimation that Fischer had wrecked on
> the ratings of so manyplayers.
>
> In August, 1960,Elosubmitted his re****t at the USCF Delegate's
> meeting in St. Louis. He had developed a formula that emulated the
> results of the existing Harkness System. Among the changes were a
> reduction on what is now known as the K-Factor. Under the Harkness
> System, if a player lost a game to an opponent with the samerating,
> he could lose 50 points. Under theEloSystem, he would only lose 16
> points. Also, the most that a player could lose in a single game was
> only 30 points, no matter how low rated the opponent was. Finally,
> each tournament was rated in succession, with theratingafter one
> tournament applied to the next, so that theratingof a player would
> go up or down gradually, not in big jumps.
>
> I was the delegate from Virginia at the USCF meeting in St. Louis in
> 1960 that approved adoption of the newEloSystem. I was the only
> delegate who voted against it. I voted against it because I did not
> like the fact that under the newEloSystem, theratingof a player
> would go up more slowly. Being a kid myself, I wanted for myratingto
> go up quickly.
>
> By the 1970s, ProfessorElowas regularly attending the annual
> meetings of FIDE, the WorldChessFederation. By then, the USCF was
> running its ownratingsystem andElowas no longer involved except as
> an advisor. However,Elohad developed a similar system forrating
> InternationalPlayersat the grandmaster level.Elo'spersonalrating
> list of the top 65playersin the world was published in the October
> 1969 issue ofChessLife magazine and was similarly published in other
> magazines around the world. Here is his initial list.
>
> At the 1970 FIDE Congress in in Siegen, West Germany, ProfessorElo
> got FIDE to agree to adopt hisEloRatingSystem as the official FIDE
> System. It was an easy sell, becauseElohimself would calculate the
> ratings on his own adding machine at his home. Thus, FIDE did not have
> to spend any money on it.
>
> There was a big difference with the USCF System, in that under the
> FIDE System as calculated by ProfessorElo, only the ratings of the
> top level eliteplayerswere calculated. Under the USCF system, all
> tournamentplayershad ratings. Under the FIDE System, a male player
> had to be a master, meaning that he had to be able to hold aratingof
> 2205 or better. Otherwise, he was not listed.
>
> Thus, onElo'sannual lists, only a few hundredplayershad ratings.
> The 1969 list only had 375playerslisted. This included all the
> grandmasters and international masters in the world who had played in
> at least two tournaments in the past two years.
>
> Elowas involved in a number of controversies, principally with his
> nemesis Bill Goichberg. Goichberg was hired in 1964 by the USCF to be
> its first full-timerating-statistician. AlthoughElohad developed
> the theory of how the system should work, it was up to Goichberg to
> put it into practice.
>
> In 1967, when the USCF moved from New York City to Newburgh New York,
> Goichberg did not move with it and instead became a big tournament
> organizer. In the mid-1970s Goichberg started organizing FIDE Rated
> Tournaments for the specific purpose of helping Americanplayersget
> FIDE Ratings. Since almost all top level tournaments were being held
> in Europe, it was nearly impossible for an American to get a
FIDEratingwithout traveling to Europe, because in order to get a
FIDERatingone generally needed to play nine games againstplayerswho
> already had FIDE ratings.
>
> As FIDE Ratings became more popular, the number of ratedplayers
> increased. By the July 1, 1983 FIDE list, 3600 men and 720 women had
> FIDE Ratings. Because there were far fewer top womenplayers, women's
> ratings were as low as 1805 whereas men had to have a minimumrating
> of 2205.
>
> By that time, ProfessorElowas no longer doing the ratings at home
> alone. One reason for this was that so manyplayershad ratings that
> one man could not do all the work.
>
> Another reason was because of a disputes between ArpadEloand William
> Goichberg, organizer of many FIDE Rated tournaments. At a time when
> less than 600playersin the world had FIDE ratings, Bill Goichberg
> started an aggressive program to qualify USplayersfor FIDE ratings.
> Typically, his tournaments were ten player round robins with
fourplayerswho already had FIDE ratings, the minimum number necessary to
> qualify a player for a partial FIDERating. However, it happened by
> pure chance that Bill Goichberg, normally a 2350 player, had the best
> tournament of his life and scored a 2530 tournament performance. In
> another event, Michael Valvo, a strong player who had been inactive,
> came out of retirement and produced a performance of 2440. Those who
> knew Valvo knew that this was a typical result for him, but ArpadElo
> had never heard of Valvo and thought that this result was suspicious.
>
> The result was that Goichberg submitted tournament results showing
> that he had earned a 2530 FIDEratingand Michael Valvo had earned a
> 2440rating. ProfessorElohad never heard of Valvo, but he knew
> Goichberg well, due to the many disputes and disagreements between
> Goichberg andEloin 1964-67 when Goichberg was therating
> statistician working in the New York office andEloin Wisconsin was
> overseeing his work.
>
> ArpadElodid not believe any of this. He thought that this was all a
> fix. Therefore,Elorefused to rate these events and to give Goichberg
> his 2530ratingand Valvo his 2440rating. Goichberg complained,
> pointing out that if some unknown Russian or unknown Yugoslav had
> produced these results,Elowould have awarded these ratings without
> question, sinceEloknew that there were manyplayersin Russia and
> Eastern Europe who were very strong and had not been allowed to
> compete internationally.
>
> The showdown came at a FIDE meeting in 1977 in Israel. USCF FIDE
> Delegate, Executive Director and Lieut. Col. Edmund B. Edmondson
> (1920-1982) protested to FIDE thatElowas biased, refusing to give
> ratings that had been earned by Americanplayerswho also had USCF
> ratings, while readily giving ratings to Soviet or Hungarianplayers.
> At that meeting,Elowas instructed to follow the rules, but when the
> July 1977ratinglist came out,Elohad done the same things again.
> FIDE President Max Euwe then arranged a meeting in Milwaukee,
> Wisconsin between Edmondson,Eloand Euwe. At that meeting, the three
> went over every disputedrating.Elofinally said that he would comply
> with FIDE rules and ultimately he did.
>
> At the 1978 WorldChessOlympiad in Buenos Aires, Argentina, news of
> what had happened reached the General Assembly of FIDE. There was a
> big controversy involving Valvo'sratingand the fact that these
> changes had been made. Manyplayersobjected to this behind-the-scenes
> deal.
|
