One question which often arises is: Do Elo historical ratings of famous players of the past enable us to predict how well they would do against present day players?
Some discussion of this issue occurred in (the now discontinued) _Chess Notes_ in 1988. Edward Winter wrote, “Elo’s retrospective rankings look less and less convincing the more one studies them. For example, George Walker is attributed 2360, the same as George Botterill in January 1988 (who has thus had the benefit of insight into a century and a half of chess development since Walker’s time).” Ken Whyld responded this “shows a misunderstanding of ELO. The ratings do not reflect how a player from a past age would fare against a present-day player. . . . Elo’s figures measure competitive ability, NOT the quality of play. . . . In chess we can only know the standing of players within the pool of which they are a part. It is idle speculation to make comparisons between discrete periods.” Arpad Elo himself then got into the discussion, saying, “The historical ratings have generated controversy partly because people misunderstand what they represent . . . Mr. Ken Whyld . . . correctly poin
