Author: Mark Young
Date: 04:10:38 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 06:31:33, Bill Gletsos wrote: >On June 19, 2001 at 03:49:07, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 19, 2001 at 00:31:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 2001 at 18:01:49, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>Nice summary Mark. Calculate the overall average for GM's, I did it last year >>>>and it was around 2525. Programs are performaing higher than that and >>>>performance is the only thing that matters in my opinion. :) >>>> >>>>I for one do not care about a title, but the performance is the key. :) >>>> >>>>Best Regards, >>>>Chris Carson >>> >>> >>>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. >>> >>>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 is data from the latest Fide list. If you think the data is flawed....Old >>Grandmasters, Out of date Grandmasters, mistakes in calculations, or just fraud >>etc. Then make your case with data not theory. It's easy to bluster, it much >>harder to do the work to prove the case as I and others are doing. > >You accuse Bob of blustering but it it you who are blustering. >You can draw any conclusion when you use data in a flawed manner. >What Bob said above is correct. No it is incorrect, unless you argue the rating list if loaded with old Grandmasters that surpress the average rating of all the other grandmasters. Are you now arguing that only peak ratings of grandmasters can be used to determain what a average Grandmaster is, We can do this but this argument also fails because it is still in the 2500+ range. >A simple example is the great Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen. >Now 66 years old he is rated 2487. Since when is 2487 not in the range of the average grandmasters. Here some data for you can chew... Snip for prev. post. ---------- To be as fair as possible to Bob's position I took the strongest younger Grandmasters for the under 2500 elo grandmaster list. Bob's position still does not hold water. Bob's Position: "So picking a bunch of GMs with ratings of 2400 and then saying "hey, computers are this good, so..." doesn't make much sense. Because at _some_ point in time, those 2400 GM players were 2600+ GM players, otherwise they would not have gotten the title..." 560 Kaminski, Marcin g POL 2499 10.03.77 M Best elo 2540 at age 19 565 Tolnai, Tibor g HUN 2499 23.09.64 M Best elo 2560 age 33 572 Stripunsky, Alexander g USA 2497 18.08.70 M Best elo 2520 age 27 ------------- Are these grandmasters old and senile also? >Not even GM strength to use your flawed criteria. The is my criteria to call computers GM strength not humans, I made it a high standard for computers. >But Larsen was a giant in his prime and during the whole of the 1970's was >always over 2600 peaking at 2660. In fact on every rating list in the 70's >Larsen was always in the top 10 in the world often in the top 5. >And this was back when a 2600 rating placed you in the top twenty of the world. >The same case can be made for ex world champion V. Smyslov currently rated 2491 >and 80 years old or for S. Gligoric currently rated 2481 and 78 years old. So you are arguing that computers must perform as Bent Larsen, or ex world champion Smyslov in their prime to be considered just a average grandmaster. Those were Elite Grandmasters you site, not a average grandmaster. Smylov and Larsen are still Grandmasters and are holding a rating consistent with many younger human grandmastes. There not Elite, but still Grandmasters. > >From a statistical viewpoint your method is extremely flawed. Really, I don't think so. > > >From reading your profile your obvious idol Mr Spock from Vulcan would never be >so illogical. It's called humor, look into it.
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.