Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:26:11 01/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2001 at 02:39:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 13, 2001 at 05:04:41, Uri Blass wrote: >[snip] >>If there are no players with GM strength we have 100% probability to be wrong >>when we decide that a player is of GM strength. > >There have to be players of GM strength unless strengths are equal. If everyone >played like a two year old except a few who played like 5 year olds, they would >be GMs. GMs are simply people who can consistently beat most other people. > >Unless players were almost completely uniform in ability, GMs *must* exist. >Since the uniform behavior is not observed, there are GMs. > >A GM from 1900 does not play the same chess as a GM from 2000. They were GM's >then because they played better than everyone else. The theories were not as >well developed and many opening flaws were not known yet. > >GMs will always exist. If everyone of incredible ability left the game, there >would still be GMs. They would be whoever was left that was still better than >the others. > >If all 2500+ players alive stopped playing right now and never played again, the >2400 players would quickly become 2500 players because of the change in the >talent pool. My point is that even if all the players are at IM strength you will always find players who are lucky to "prove" that they are GM strength with condidence of 95%. It means that the probability of error when you say that someone is of GM strength in this case is 100%. Uri
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.