"I don't believe so, since Giri bounced back during Tata steel, which would imply that his decline was only temporary-which would mean it's not age."
Incorrect. You have to decouple the systematic trend from the statistical noise in order to infer rigorous statements.
The elo system itself is based on standard statistical assumptions, namely that there are more than enough high-frequency components in the playing strength distribution, leading to natural variations. In the elo curve, you can also simply separate this by applying a low-pass filter.
"I am not the only one who compared Ding to Levy, Levy himself did so. "
This does not shield you from criticism. My above post applies to Rozman himself, too. As I do not consume his content, I do not care too much about it. But I do here, as I think that LiChess is a high-quality platform, and written statements typically can be held to a higher intellectual standard than clickbaity youtube content.
I just think it is highly inappropriate to compare both. There is literally no evidence that Rozman has more strength "down there", and his tournaments results (if considered as a total) do not suggest otherwise.
I have a guy in my chess team in his twenties.
In February 2024, his elo was 2290.
In June, it was 2360.
In November, 2260.
Now, it is 2295 again.
Did he became a super-strong-player during summer, a super-weak-one in autumn ?
No. It is simple statistics, but for a player that obviously has larger statistical variance than others have.
It is the oldest trick in the book that we attribute every rating gain as proof of our "superior understanding", of having the "strength down there" etc, whereas every rating loss is attributed to some little sickness, some mental block etc. etc;
I do know how mental problems affect the playing style. I know what went through my head during games when I was healthy, and I do know what went through my head in the last years. With Ding, it is similar. With Rozman, not so much.
"I don't believe so, since Giri bounced back during Tata steel, which would imply that his decline was only temporary-which would mean it's not age."
Incorrect. You have to decouple the systematic trend from the statistical noise in order to infer rigorous statements.
The elo system itself is based on standard statistical assumptions, namely that there are more than enough high-frequency components in the playing strength distribution, leading to natural variations. In the elo curve, you can also simply separate this by applying a low-pass filter.
"I am not the only one who compared Ding to Levy, Levy himself did so. "
This does not shield you from criticism. My above post applies to Rozman himself, too. As I do not consume his content, I do not care too much about it. But I do here, as I think that LiChess is a high-quality platform, and written statements typically can be held to a higher intellectual standard than clickbaity youtube content.
I just think it is highly inappropriate to compare both. There is literally no evidence that Rozman has more strength "down there", and his tournaments results (if considered as a total) do not suggest otherwise.
I have a guy in my chess team in his twenties.
In February 2024, his elo was 2290.
In June, it was 2360.
In November, 2260.
Now, it is 2295 again.
Did he became a super-strong-player during summer, a super-weak-one in autumn ?
No. It is simple statistics, but for a player that obviously has larger statistical variance than others have.
It is the oldest trick in the book that we attribute every rating gain as proof of our "superior understanding", of having the "strength down there" etc, whereas every rating loss is attributed to some little sickness, some mental block etc. etc;
I do know how mental problems affect the playing style. I know what went through my head during games when I was healthy, and I do know what went through my head in the last years. With Ding, it is similar. With Rozman, not so much.