Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:35:21 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 13:26:42, Mark Young wrote: >On June 19, 2001 at 12:47:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 19, 2001 at 11:38:48, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>Is anyone here going to argue that (New) GM Maurice Ashley is not a true GM >>>level Player? If not why, given the arguments made by some in this forum. >>> >>>GM Maurice Ashley USA (Of Chess Wise Univerity) >>> >>>06.03.1966 (Younger the GM Smyslov) >>> >>>2484 rated (Has a lower rating then GM Smyslov has a much lower rating the some >>>computers) >>> >>>2500 best elo (Has dropped 16 elo off his best, This would exclude GM Ashley for >>>the Cherry picked GM list given some of the responses I have read) >> >>Doesn't matter. He produced the 2600+ norms. >> >>I don't see the point. > >Interesting > >Then Why exclude GM Smyslov Elo 2491 for the ratings calculation, he is a >Better, Stronger, Grandmaster today then GM Ashley 2484. Or do you no longer >agree with your own logic. Mark... you have a serious problem. Something is misfiring mentally and causing thoughts to get jumbled up. There are two questions here: 1. Do I think Ashley is a GM? Yes. Should he be counted in the average? Yes. 2. Do I think Smyslov is a GM? Yes. Should he be counted in the average? Depends on what you are trying to compute. He obviously is not at his peak. Nor anywhere near it. I simply stated the following: If you want to compute the "average GM rating" then just taking all GM players is a bit misleading, because there are so many old GM players that are nowhere near as strong as they once were. One of my very favorite "older GM players" (and if anyone tells him I wrote this I will deny it until I die. :) ) is Bill Lombardy, Fischer's second in 1972. He used to play Crafty all the time on ICC (longish games, 5 14 and the like, and we had hundreds of interesting discussions about strategy. But he is nowhere near what he was in 1972. He is just fortunate to be "on the right side of the grass" today (I assume as I haven't talked to him in a year or two) but on the wrong side of the rating curve. I _still_ don't see the purpose of the "average GM rating" since I have never claimed _anything_ about this "average". > >GM Smyslov has a better rating then many Grandmasters and is 80 years old, yet >you impugn him and the data because GM Smyslov who is still a good Grandmaster >is calculated in the GM ratings for what a average GM is. Your argument is the >data is not valid because players like GM Smyslov are on the list. You can't >have it both ways....If GM Smyslov in not a valid GM, then how can GM Ashley be >Valid. I didn't impugn _anybody_. That is your imagination. I simply stated the truth when I said "He is nowhere near as strong today as he was 20 years ago, nor is his rating anywhere near what it was 20 years ago" I said no more or no less. If someone tells me my programming skill/energy is not what it was 30 years ago, I would agree, not feel "impugned"... > >Or is it your contention that we make a factious rating list base on only peak >elo data for all Grandmasters no matter what year they peaked, then make this >the defenition of a Average GM? No. I would say the concept of "average GM" is simply 100% meaningless. Just as the average IM, average master, etc... Just generate a dozen random numbers and use those. > >What data do you want to use? How will you have us cherry pick the data to >achieve your 2600+ average GM rating. I don't have a 2600+ average GM rating. You keep saying I said that. I keep saying you are _wrong_. > >I will help you: > >I. Only Calculate the TPR's from the norms achieved by the Grandmasters, That >kind of cherry pick data is full proof for you Bob, since it take a 2600+ TPR to >achieve the norm. > >Is this what you will have us do? Is this what an average GM is, because unless >you do this your Average GM Rating and Theory of 2600+ will never happen. > >Snip from Bob's post. >-------- >Several points: > >1. anyone check the _age_ of each GM being 'averaged' into this mess? IE >a 75 year old GM is still a GM, but won't have much of a rating. That was a poor choice of words. I don't really believe that 75 is an absolute number. I would bet some GMs are still very strong at 75, while others are hopelessly inept by that age for medical reasons... I should have said "older GM players with diminished skill" rather than "a 75 year old GM". I hope to still be programming at 75, but I also know several that are incapable of doing so at that age... It varies. But impaired skill _does_ occur at some point, and your "mythical average GM" should factor that in... or the number will go steadily down as the life expectancy is steadily going up. If you wait long enough the average GM rating will be 1500. > >2. anyhone check to make sure ratings were current? IE Fischer's rating is >not particularly interesting since it is 30 years old and from a different >rating era. > >The main problem is probably age. Just like the "baby-boomers" are threatening >retirement systems around the world, they are also moving up into the "older-GM" >group as well. If you have more old GM players, then you will have a lower >overall GM average. Which means exactly nothing of course. >-------
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.