If the Fargo rating system existed back in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, how many of those top Legendary players do you think would have been an 800?

[DeeDeeCues]

It is difficult to believe that anyone who watches footage of yesteryear believes that the old timers like Sigel, Varner, Strickland, Archer, Mizerak had a) fundamentals comparable to the players of today, b) pocketed balls as well as the players of today even while playing on much looser pockets, c) broke the balls as well as the players of today, d) kicked and jumped as well as the players of today, or e) are, on average, better trained athletes than those of today, etc. And yet, "So What?"

As Chili Palmer has noted with clarity, the comparison is apples to oranges. As we so often note on the forum, a player can only be judged against their own contemporaries. Advances in equipment, training, and online resources for gaining knowledge of the game have not only put today's players at a higher level than those of 1990, but today's players are well above those of 2015. As importantly, the globalization of the game, especially in the past ten years, means that there are three times as many straight shooters as in 2015 and possibly ten times as many as in 1990.

Another thing that has raised the level of play demonstrably is the number of world class events found on the world pool calendar. There weren't many events each year that featured at least half of the world's top 50 until recently. This has allowed today's crop to build a stronger competitive pedigree than even those of 2015, let alone those of 1990.

Was Sigel better than Filler? In absolute terms, no way, but if Sigel had all the same advantages with respect to equipment, training, online resources, I'd guess he'd have been just as good as Josh. We'll never know.

These comparisons are problematic. Are we to suggest that racecar drivers of 1950 weren't very good because they took longer to get around the track than the drivers of today? Of course not! Pro golfers hit it much further than their counterparts of yesteryear, but are they better?

In short, in most sports, the best that ever played are the ones that play it today, but it doesn't make sense to measure a player against the players of another generation. One's level of excellence against one's contemporaries is the only real measure of greatness.

Finally, I think the transition to the old playing conditions would have been extremely easy for today's best. Who will forget when Sigel predicted that the younger players would struggle with the slower conditions in use at the 2006 IPT Las Vegas 8ball event? Mike predicted that the Hall of Famers would enjoy great success in the event. In that event, every BCA Hall of Famer was guaranteed a payout of $30,000 and would earn more if they went deep enough in the event. Not even one of them earned more than $30,000 in that event. As importantly, the younger players transitioned seamlessly to the slower cloth.

Today's crop of players are better cueists and I'm not sure even one player of 1990 played at what we now perceive to be a Fargo 800 level of performance, but it is likely that the greatest of that era would have been as good as the greatest of this one given all the advantages enjoyed by today's crop of players.

The greats would have been greats in any era if given all the resources available in that era of play.

Filler vs Sigel? Apples and oranges.

PS The question posed in the thread title isn't dumb, but it doesn't get to the crux of the matter of comparing players past and present. Still, in absolute terms, the comparison is very easy. Today's best pocket as well on 4" pockets as the best of 1990 did on 4 3/4" pockets. The quality of cueing has, quite simply, gone through the roof.

All of the old great would still be at the top in any era.

The story of the four-minute mile pretty well proves this. The top minds considered it to be beyond human ability, but it was first broken by a college runner. Shortly after it was broken numerous times.

All champions stand on the shoulders of giants to some extent.

 

[DieselPete]

Wouldn't it be easy enough to use historical match data to bridge yesteryear with hereyear?

Unfortunately, no. You simply would not have enough archived data to build an accurate ecosystem of play, going from the top pros down to the 400s and 500s-level players.

While we might be able to piece together some data for a top player (which would be painstaking) it would be almost impossible to then piece together how all of the players they played did against the players they played, and so on.

Consider: Joshua Filler has 14,869 games in the system. Other top players have similar numbers. The average guy in my league (which also contribute to the very same ecosystem that Filler's Fargo depends on) have anywhere from 200 to 2,000 games (easily). The guys I play with also play with Anthony Meglino (12,914 games), so there is a line from guys like Filler to the guy on the table next to me on a Monday night.

we could never recreate that level of interconnectedness for players from the 1980s and '90s.

 

[sjm]

All of the old great would still be at the top in any era.

The story of the four-minute mile pretty well proves this. The top minds considered it to be beyond human ability, but it was first broken by a college runner. Shortly after it was broken numerous times.

All champions stand on the shoulders of giants to some extent.

Pretty much how I feel. Those that dominated against their contemporaries in any era deserve as much recognition as the greats of today.

The observation that today's greats stand on the shoulders of the greats of yesteryear is a good one.

 

[loggerhead12]

Unfortunately, no. You simply would not have enough archived data to build an accurate ecosystem of play, going from the top pros down to the 400s and 500s-level players.

While we might be able to piece together some data for a top player (which would be painstaking) it would be almost impossible to then piece together how all of the players they played did against the players they played, and so on.

There's a lot you could do. Like having AI watch all the available Accustats matches on YouTube and come up with a list of wins/losses by game for each player. The results could be great, or wildly inaccurate, but entertaining either way.

 

[Lowell]

It is difficult to believe that anyone who watches footage of yesteryear believes that the old timers like Sigel, Varner, Strickland, Archer, Mizerak had a) fundamentals comparable to the players of today, b) pocketed balls as well as the players of today even while playing on much looser pockets, c) broke the balls as well as the players of today, d) kicked and jumped as well as the players of today, or e) are, on average, better trained athletes than those of today, etc. And yet, "So What?"

As Chili Palmer has noted with clarity, the comparison is apples to oranges. As we so often note on the forum, a player can only be judged against their own contemporaries. Advances in equipment, training, and online resources for gaining knowledge of the game have not only put today's players at a higher level than those of 1990, but today's players are well above those of 2015. As importantly, the globalization of the game, especially in the past ten years, means that there are three times as many straight shooters as in 2015 and possibly ten times as many as in 1990.

Another thing that has raised the level of play demonstrably is the number of world class events found on the world pool calendar. There weren't many events each year that featured at least half of the world's top 50 until recently. This has allowed today's crop to build a stronger competitive pedigree than even those of 2015, let alone those of 1990.

Was Sigel better than Filler? In absolute terms, no way, but if Sigel had all the same advantages with respect to equipment, training, online resources, I'd guess he'd have been just as good as Josh. We'll never know.

These comparisons are problematic. Are we to suggest that racecar drivers of 1950 weren't very good because they took longer to get around the track than the drivers of today? Of course not! Pro golfers hit it much further than their counterparts of yesteryear, but are they better?

In short, in most sports, the best that ever played are the ones that play it today, but it doesn't make sense to measure a player against the players of another generation. One's level of excellence against one's contemporaries is the only real measure of greatness.

Finally, I think the transition to the old playing conditions would have been extremely easy for today's best. Who will forget when Sigel predicted that the younger players would struggle with the slower conditions in use at the 2006 IPT Las Vegas 8ball event? Mike predicted that the Hall of Famers would enjoy great success in the event. In that event, every BCA Hall of Famer was guaranteed a payout of $30,000 and would earn more if they went deep enough in the event. Not even one of them earned more than $30,000 in that event. As importantly, the younger players transitioned seamlessly to the slower cloth.

Today's crop of players are better cueists and I'm not sure even one player of 1990 played at what we now perceive to be a Fargo 800 level of performance, but it is likely that the greatest of that era would have been as good as the greatest of this one given all the advantages enjoyed by today's crop of players.

The greats would have been greats in any era if given all the resources available in that era of play.

Filler vs Sigel? Apples and oranges.

PS The question posed in the thread title isn't dumb, but it doesn't get to the crux of the matter of comparing players past and present. Still, in absolute terms, the comparison is very easy. Today's best pocket as well on 4" pockets as the best of 1990 did on 4 3/4" pockets. The quality of cueing has, quite simply, gone through the roof.

I was watching the 1998 US open finals and was surprised by how visibly less good the players were back then.

No disrespect to them of course, but it is mind blowing how far the game has come in just a few decades. But I do agree with those who day that the players are more robot like these days (for better or worse).

 

[td873]

Well, here goes a long brain dump.

There is no objective score for pool, so it's not possible to use that as a baseline for "who is better." For example, the 100m freestyle swim is always 100m. So it's easy to see who is fastest across time. It's fairly objective to say that the best a decade ago was 10 seconds slower than today.

Fargo is a relative rating systems. You "earn" a rating relative to your contemporaries. It's a statistical analysis that I think has some inherent issues, but, overall, it is very good. Undoubtedly the best we've every had.

Consider: Shane in 2015 was the highest rated player at 824 Fargo. Now, he's a 846. And Filler is 860 today. So, a decade ago, would "best in the world" Shane be better or worse than today's #6 Shane, who is 20 points higher rated. And, how would 2015 Shane [best in the world then] compare to today's Filler [best in the world now]. Similarly, is Shane in 2015 (824) the same Fargo "caliber" player as Niels, Capito or Alcaide of today (~820). Fargo across time is weird.

Also, there is no cap for Fargo (as far as I know). And it looks like there has been some inherent inflation of the ratings (Fargo creep, which I think folks disagree with despite the top ranking increase over the last 10 years). That is (rhetorically), why is the best in the world today ago 40 points higher than the best in the world a decade ago? If this could be interpreted as a trendline, then we might see a 40 point drop every decade. This is odd to contemplate because, using this trend, 100 years ago the best-in-the-world would be a ~500 Fargo. While that seems low against today's numbers, against their peers in that era, if 500 was the highest rating you could get, then a 490 would still be world class.

Synthesizing that gibberish, one answer is that there would be no 800 Fargo rated players in the 70s or 80s because 800 Fargo didn't come to be until the middle 2000s and 850 didn't exist until recently. That is, even Shane (or whoever was #1 in 2000) might not even be 800. This isn't a perfect analysis, but you get the idea of one perspective on top Fargo over time.

But maybe you could apply some scaling factor to players in prior eras to put those players in ranked order and then say the top [then] would be 850 [now]. You could get a mapping using today's Fargo numbers, but it would just be for show with little statistical accuracy.

[note: I'm pretty sure Mike discussed using 1000 as a theoretical reference point for someone that is superhumanly dominant along the way. And I think 500 is the anchor point for average pool players. So the middle should stay the middle, but the top might continue to grow. Also, you can't really take the past data of players and insert it into the Fargo db and calculate scores because there would likely be too much statistical error. The number of datapoints would also be very small compared to what we have today].

-td [my two cents. Definitely worth much less]

 

[sjm]

Well, here goes a long brain dump.

There is no objective score for pool, so it's not possible to use that as a baseline for "who is better." For example, the 100m freestyle swim is always 100m. So it's easy to see who is fastest across time. It's fairly objective to say that the best a decade ago was 10 seconds slower than today.

Fargo is a relative rating systems. You "earn" a rating relative to your contemporaries. It's a statistical analysis that I think has some inherent issues, but, overall, it is very good. Undoubtedly the best we've every had.

Consider: Shane in 2015 was the highest rated player at 824 Fargo. Now, he's a 846. And Filler is 860 today. So, a decade ago, would "best in the world" Shane be better or worse than today's #6 Shane, who is 20 points higher rated. And, how would 2015 Shane [best in the world then] compare to today's Filler [best in the world now]. Similarly, is Shane in 2015 (824) the same Fargo "caliber" player as Niels, Capito or Alcaide of today (~820). Fargo across time is weird.

Also, there is no cap for Fargo (as far as I know). And it looks like there has been some inherent inflation of the ratings (Fargo creep, which I think folks disagree with despite the top ranking increase over the last 10 years). That is (rhetorically), why is the best in the world today ago 40 points higher than the best in the world a decade ago? If this could be interpreted as a trendline, then we might see a 40 point drop every decade. This is odd to contemplate because, using this trend, 100 years ago the best-in-the-world would be a ~500 Fargo. While that seems low against today's numbers, against their peers in that era, if 500 was the highest rating you could get, then a 490 would still be world class.

Synthesizing that gibberish, one answer is that there would be no 800 Fargo rated players in the 70s or 80s because 800 Fargo didn't come to be until the middle 2000s and 850 didn't exist until recently. That is, even Shane (or whoever was #1 in 2000) might not even be 800. This isn't a perfect analysis, but you get the idea of one perspective on top Fargo over time.

But maybe you could apply some scaling factor to players in prior eras to put those players in ranked order and then say the top [then] would be 850 [now]. You could get a mapping using today's Fargo numbers, but it would just be for show with little statistical accuracy.

[note: I'm pretty sure Mike discussed using 1000 as a theoretical reference point for someone that is superhumanly dominant along the way. And I think 500 is the anchor point for average pool players. So the middle should stay the middle, but the top might continue to grow. Also, you can't really take the past data of players and insert it into the Fargo db and calculate scores because there would likely be too much statistical error. The number of datapoints would also be very small compared to what we have today].

-td [my two cents. Definitely worth much less]

Nice post. I think the primary takeaway is that Fargo is not the best method of comparing players across generations. In the end, it is all about who won the toughest titles on the pool calendar.

 

[DieselPete]

Nice post. I think the primary takeaway is that Fargo is not the best method of comparing players across generations. In the end, it is all about who won the toughest titles on the pool calendar.

Agreed, and I'd go a step farther. I would say that Fargo is weak at comparing across generations. I think that comparing one year to the next is fine (largely the same ecosystem of data), but once we are looking at ten years apart... I have no faith.

To continue the example, SVB in 2015 was apparently 824. These are the players today that are at that or higher. (Which also means that 2026 SVB would give 2015 SVB a game on the wire in a race to 11, or something like that.)

1. Joshua Filler DEU863
2. Fedor Gorst USA850
3. Pin-Yi Ko TWN849
4. Ping-Chung Ko TWN848
5. Francisco Sanchez Ruiz ESP846
6. Shane Van Boening USA846
7. Aloysius Yapp SGP842
8. Ameer Ali IRQ842
9. Jung Lin Chang TWN841
10. Johann Chua PHL841
11. Carlo Biado PHL838
12. Jayson Shaw SCT836
13. Wojciech Szewczyk POL834
14. Albin Ouschan AUT833
15. Eklent Kaci ALB831
16. Anton Raga PHL831
17. Quoc Hoang Duong VNM831
18. Wiktor Zielinski POL831
19. Naoyuki Oi JPN830
20. Jonas Magpantay PHL827
21. Dennis Orcollo PHL827
22. Kun Lin Wu TWN825
23. Alex Kazakis GRC825

 

[sjm]

Agreed, and I'd go a step farther. I would say that Fargo is weak at comparing across generations. I think that comparing one year to the next is fine (largely the same ecosystem of data), but once we are looking at ten years apart... I have no faith.

To continue the example, SVB in 2015 was apparently 824. These are the players today that are at that or higher. (Which also means that 2026 SVB would give 2015 SVB a game on the wire in a race to 11, or something like that.)

1. Joshua Filler DEU863
2. Fedor Gorst USA850
3. Pin-Yi Ko TWN849
4. Ping-Chung Ko TWN848
5. Francisco Sanchez Ruiz ESP846
6. Shane Van Boening USA846
7. Aloysius Yapp SGP842
8. Ameer Ali IRQ842
9. Jung Lin Chang TWN841
10. Johann Chua PHL841
11. Carlo Biado PHL838
12. Jayson Shaw SCT836
13. Wojciech Szewczyk POL834
14. Albin Ouschan AUT833
15. Eklent Kaci ALB831
16. Anton Raga PHL831
17. Quoc Hoang Duong VNM831
18. Wiktor Zielinski POL831
19. Naoyuki Oi JPN830
20. Jonas Magpantay PHL827
21. Dennis Orcollo PHL827
22. Kun Lin Wu TWN825
23. Alex Kazakis GRC825

You're right on the money here, Diesel Pete.

 

[Cameron Smith]

With respect to Shane’s 824 rating from 10 years ago, I think you need to account for the time it took for everyone’s rating to settle. While I’m sure players improved over time, a lot of the rating increase was likely driven by the need to get enough games into the system and enough connections established. At that point, when top players were sitting between 780 and 800, it was difficult for Shane to go much higher than that. Once the professional field became more connected and spread out on the scale, his rating and those of other top players adjusted upward.

In terms of the broader question, I do think you would end up with a similar scale if Fargo had been applied during the 70s and 80s. If you managed to capture a similarly representative player population, the lower and middle portions of the player base would provide a fairly stable anchor. The lowest skill levels are constrained by human ability and the learning curve of the game itself. A player who can barely pocket balls in 1976 looks an awful lot like a player who can barely pocket balls in 2026. From there, you still have players who beat those beginners most of the time, players who beat those players most of the time, and so on. So while the skill level of pros and top amateurs may change, there will always be that player who consistently beats beginners, hovers around the 400 level, and gets pummeled by the more serious players. What changes is the number of strong players above them and how separated those groups become.

One caveat might be the relative newness of 9-ball as the primary competitive game during the 70s compared to now. You could argue that without the benefit of modern breaking techniques, racking knowledge, safety play, kicking systems, and overall strategic knowledge, the scale at the top end might end up being a bit more compressed. On the other hand, during the era of two-foul 9-ball, you may have seen more separation between the top players and the rest of the pack if it meaningfully reduced the influence of luck. Once the game shifted to one-foul ball-in-hand, I suspect the ratings may have compressed somewhat. Ultimately, how much the scale changes probably depends on whether those variables increase or decrease volatility in match outcomes.

 

[td873]

With respect to Shane’s 824 rating from 10 years ago, I think you need to account for the time it took for everyone’s rating to settle. While I’m sure players improved over time, a lot of the rating increase was likely driven by the need to get enough games into the system and enough connections established. At that point, when top players were sitting between 780 and 800, it was difficult for Shane to go much higher than that. Once the professional field became more connected and spread out on the scale, his rating and those of other top players adjusted upward.

In terms of the broader question, I do think you would end up with a similar scale if Fargo had been applied during the 70s and 80s. If you managed to capture a similarly representative player population, the lower and middle portions of the player base would provide a fairly stable anchor. The lowest skill levels are constrained by human ability and the learning curve of the game itself. A player who can barely pocket balls in 1976 looks an awful lot like a player who can barely pocket balls in 2026. From there, you still have players who beat those beginners most of the time, players who beat those players most of the time, and so on. So while the skill level of pros and top amateurs may change, there will always be that player who consistently beats beginners, hovers around the 400 level, and gets pummeled by the more serious players. What changes is the number of strong players above them and how separated those groups become.

One caveat might be the relative newness of 9-ball as the primary competitive game during the 70s compared to now. You could argue that without the benefit of modern breaking techniques, racking knowledge, safety play, kicking systems, and overall strategic knowledge, the scale at the top end might end up being a bit more compressed. On the other hand, during the era of two-foul 9-ball, you may have seen more separation between the top players and the rest of the pack if it meaningfully reduced the influence of luck. Once the game shifted to one-foul ball-in-hand, I suspect the ratings may have compressed somewhat. Ultimately, how much the scale changes probably depends on whether those variables increase or decrease volatility in match outcomes.

What do you mean statistical settling? Fargo was used for many years before Shane's 824 in 2015. I think once you get 1000+ robustness and over 2MM data points, the rating would be fairly accurate. I could be missing something though.

Separately, given the Fargo creep, having 800 rated players in the 700s might give us over 1000 rated players now! That would be a hoot! Who is gonna be the first 1,000!!!

I don't think ratings have compressed. I think they have actually expanded, no?

-td

 

[Cameron Smith]

What do you mean statistical settling? Fargo was used for many years before Shane's 824 in 2015. I think once you get 1000+ robustness and over 2MM data points, the rating would be fairly accurate. I could be missing something though.

Separately, given the Fargo creep, having 800 rated players in the 700s might give us over 1000 rated players now! That would be a hoot! Who is gonna be the first 1,000!!!

I don't think ratings have compressed. I think they have actually expanded, no?

-td

So Shane may have had 1,000+ games at the time, but in the early days there weren’t nearly as many pros or players in the system with high robustness, and many were still building from starter ratings. The issue isn’t Shane’s robustness, it’s the robustness and connectivity of the player network around him.

For example, you had players like Albin sitting in the high 700s who were primarily competing against other players who were also in the high 700s at the time, but many of those same players would later end up as 800+ Fargo players. If everyone in that group is initially clustered together, there is only so much room for separation until more results, more connections, and more reporting resolve where everyone actually sits relative to the broader player population.

My point is that Shane can only be rated relative to his competition. If his competition isn’t yet accurately positioned relative to the rest of the Fargo universe because the network is still maturing, that affects Shane’s rating as well.

And yes, ratings have expanded. What I meant by compression was mostly brainstorming how variables unique to the 70s and 80s might affect the distribution of ratings.

 

[straightline]

So Fargo, and Before Fargo.
Had there always been Fargo, wouldn't Pool - and Fargo Now, be different?

 

[Chili Palmer]

The thing about Fargo, is that you could just quit competing forever, and your Fargo will stay exactly the same as it was the last time you competed, in a Fargo rate tournament.

Incorrect, when I quit I was at 631, within a year or so it was down to 612. Have played a few small tournaments since then and it went to 620'sh, currently sits at 616. It fluctuates all the time.

 

[greyghost]

I agree that Fargo is extremely accurate.

Still, it wasn't that long ago that there were zero players in the world that had a Fargo of 800. I think Shane and Wu were the first two, and that was in 2010 or so.

Actually, I think the 780 of fifteen years ago, who would have been a top ten player in the world at the time, would have had no trouble staying with a 780 of today. The 780 of today, however, is about the 150th best player in the world and makes a very marginal income from competition.

Fargo like chess rating is not a measure of absolute skill it is a relative skill vs opponent.

The numbers grow because of higher numbers of players and matches being input into the system and the bell curve that represents in wins vs losses overall from the worst to the best players.

If Fargo had started in the 70s with just the pros the max rating could be say 2350 now as an example with all the amateur and pros being included.

If Fargo were an absolute skill input then we wouldn’t have players rated at 730 that really are 650s or 700s that are barely over 600. And some players that are 699 that should be a 740 and so on and so forth. If your opponents suck and your from a small area your Fargo will be falsely inflated compared to the actual relative skill of the masses.

 

[greyghost]

Unfortunately, no. You simply would not have enough archived data to build an accurate ecosystem of play, going from the top pros down to the 400s and 500s-level players.

While we might be able to piece together some data for a top player (which would be painstaking) it would be almost impossible to then piece together how all of the players they played did against the players they played, and so on.

Consider: Joshua Filler has 14,869 games in the system. Other top players have similar numbers. The average guy in my league (which also contribute to the very same ecosystem that Filler's Fargo depends on) have anywhere from 200 to 2,000 games (easily). The guys I play with also play with Anthony Meglino (12,914 games), so there is a line from guys like Filler to the guy on the table next to me on a Monday night.

we could never recreate that level of interconnectedness for players from the 1980s and '90s.

You could use accustat style ratings from old matches to get a close equlivant.

As example Earl and Efferen’s accustat ratings for their 200+ game COLOR OF MONEY match were

Earl : .912
Effren: .911

Plenty races to 100 today have lower ratings…with averages actually well below that.

Shane has posted as high as a .940

Plenty of pros don’t even post .900 at tournaments in races to 9 so to do it for 237 games at .911/.912 is fucking highly exceptional.

At the end of the day wether you out the guys from the past here today or the guys today in the past they would all adjust and attain the level necessary to win…because at the end of the day champions ain’t champions because of the equipment…it’s a burning desire.

 

[vintagecollectibles831]

It doesn't matter how good the individual player is, there still would have been 850 FR players in every era. FR isn't based on how well you pocket balls or play the game, only how well you perform against your contemporaries.

Yeah, very good point.

 

[vintagecollectibles831]

I agree that Fargo is extremely accurate.

Still, it wasn't that long ago that there were zero players in the world that had a Fargo of 800. I think Shane and Wu were the first two, and that was in 2010 or so.

Actually, I think the 780 of fifteen years ago, who would have been a top ten player in the world at the time, would have had no trouble staying with a 780 of today. The 780 of today, however, is about the 150th best player in the world and makes a very marginal income from competition.

I guess this is all because there are far more really great players.

 

[vintagecollectibles831]

This just isn't true or even almost true.The best from yesteryear would have absolutely no chance (well of course this isn't true, it would be non-zero) against the best today. They would adjust immediately - have you actually watched them and seen how good they are?

Even if they could not take their current equipment with them? And, had to play with what was available, in 1990, for example? Back then, there were no LD shafts, or Layered tips, or high tech break cues, and jump cues.

 

[vintagecollectibles831]

Unfortunately, no. You simply would not have enough archived data to build an accurate ecosystem of play, going from the top pros down to the 400s and 500s-level players.

While we might be able to piece together some data for a top player (which would be painstaking) it would be almost impossible to then piece together how all of the players they played did against the players they played, and so on.

Consider: Joshua Filler has 14,869 games in the system. Other top players have similar numbers. The average guy in my league (which also contribute to the very same ecosystem that Filler's Fargo depends on) have anywhere from 200 to 2,000 games (easily). The guys I play with also play with Anthony Meglino (12,914 games), so there is a line from guys like Filler to the guy on the table next to me on a Monday night.

we could never recreate that level of interconnectedness for players from the 1980s and '90s.

Wow, and I thought that 6,000 games in the system was a lot. I looked at some of the ratings of some of the players who signed up for a 650 and under capped event, and was shocked to see that they had over 6,000 games in the system. I guess odds are that they will be staying a 650, for example, like, for a very long time.