English Chess Forum

I believe there is a consensus among those who know a lot about chess ratings that there has been rating inflation at the lower end, which was partly caused/recognised by the artificial uplift a few years ago. But has there been some rating deflation in the something like the 2000-2400 range as well?

I am now rated under 2000, and I always put my decline down to age, which I am sure is the main factor. However, I notice a lot of players in the 2100-2300 bracket have also experienced a big rating drop in the last five years, and I wonder if there might be another factor. Could it be that a lot of youngsters taking up chess during the pandemic, then chewed up players like me OTB while they were lowly rated, before giving up or reaching their peak when they went to university, or started working just as their rating was reaching that bracket? That process is then repeated with the next batch of youngsters, and so on.

Just an idle thought, because I don't feel a desire to research it myself, especially as I don't know much about the maths of the system. My FIDE and ECF ratings matter little to me, only in as much as they affect the tournaments I can enter, and also affect the draw in Accelerated Swiss pairings, both of which are causes of frustration to me.

Martin Benjamin wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2026 2:56 pm

I believe there is a consensus among those who know a lot about chess ratings that there has been rating inflation at the lower end, which was partly caused/recognised by the artificial uplift a few years ago. But has there been some rating deflation in the something like the 2000-2400 range as well?

You need to tell us whether you think this applies only to FIDE ratings or to ECF ones as well. Although the calculations are similar there are detail differences in the treatment of new players and junior players which can make a difference to their evolution over time. Indeed FIDE concluded not so long ago that their system had seriously deflated ratings under 2000 and as a consequence upped their minimum rating to 1400 and compressed everyone between 1000 and 2000 into a 1400 to 2000 range. They also changed their rules on the treatment of new players.


It's an unanswered question as to whether one needs to improve the standard of play to maintain a constant rating. The point being that if understanding of openings and middle game positions is continuously improving, what needs to be done to keep up?

Learn endgames?

Martin Benjamin wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2026 2:56 pm

Could it be that a lot of youngsters taking up chess during the pandemic, then chewed up players like me OTB while they were lowly rated, before giving up or reaching their peak when they went to university, or started working just as their rating was reaching that bracket? That process is then repeated with the next batch of youngsters, and so on.

Note that the retirement effect here is actually irrelevant to the deflation; it is the improvement effect that matters.

(Under a Clarke system, on the other hand, the retirement effect would have an effect on the scale of the deflation, because it changes the ratio of accurately rated to underrated players.)

Martin Benjamin wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2026 2:56 pm

I believe there is a consensus among those who know a lot about chess ratings that there has been rating inflation at the lower end, which was partly caused/recognised by the artificial uplift a few years ago. But has there been some rating deflation in the something like the 2000-2400 range as well?

There is no consensus even about what, if anything, these terms mean. In my years on QC I was told at different times that we had to fix both of these problems, but was never given a definition of what they were perceived to be. One thing of which you can be sure is that artificially "fixing" one of of them will in due course bring about the other.

It has always seemed to me that rating deflation means "my rating should be higher", while rating inflation means "other people's ratings should be lower".

As Roger suggested, the FIDE and ECF systems face entirely different issues.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 08, 2026 11:28 am

It has always seemed to me that rating deflation means "my rating should be higher", while rating inflation means "other people's ratings should be lower".

I think more charitably, it is probably:

(i) Rating deflation means "I am losing to underrated juniors who are stealing rating points from me".

(ii) Rating inflation means "other people are avoiding this and their ratings are going up and I am staying where I am or going down".

But to at least a degree, both rating inflation and deflation are objectively observable phenomena irrespective of their effect on individuals.

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 08, 2026 4:17 pm

But to at least a degree, both rating inflation and deflation are objectively observable phenomena irrespective of their effect on individuals.

How? Surely you have to define them first.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2026 4:04 pm

You need to tell us whether you think this applies only to FIDE ratings or to ECF ones as well.

I was looking at ECF ratings.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 08, 2026 11:28 am

It has always seemed to me that rating deflation means "my rating should be higher", while rating inflation means "other people's ratings should be lower".

I am not referencing my own rating. I am not saying I should be higher rated. I was wondering how the spread of players in various bands has shifted over recent years, especially in the 2000-2300 bracket. More seem to me to be in decline than on the rise. Perhaps that's just the people I am familiar with, or perhaps it is a wider phenomenon, I don't know.

Like Nick, I would love to know what these "objectively observable phenomena" might be.

I suspect Martin mixes mostly with those over 40. What we do know is that rating trends vary with age.. The Full List graph is the full standard play rating list averaged by each age and smoothed. Opening ratings are on 1st Jan 2021 and closing ratings are 1st Jan 2026. It suggests a big problem. It might be explained by a different type of player emerging after covid, because if you look at players who appear in both lists, excluding new players and leavers (and everyone 5 years older in the closing list) you get this view-the Common List- when the opposite seems to be going on.

Brian Valentine wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 08, 2026 9:23 pm

It might be explained by a different type of player emerging after covid, because if you look at players who appear in both lists, excluding new players and leavers (and everyone 5 years older in the closing list) you get this view-the Common List- when the opposite seems to be going on.

Weighting by head count might show a different story. It's been known or was known that the massed numbers of under 11s doesn't translate into massed numbers of under 21s 10 years later. The headcount of rated players was static for many years, but now has doubled at least as far as the ECF membership headcount suggests. The demographic of new (and returning) players could be checked against the existing set pre Covid.

If you look at the British Championship reports of 30 years ago on britbase, it's noticeable how few entrants there were to the Senior or Veteran sections. The same may also apply 20 years ago.