Author: Mark Young
Date: 08:01:30 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 10:49:07, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On June 19, 2001 at 10:30:36, Mark Young wrote: > >>The argument that Dr Hyatt and others are using in the data is skewed because >>some of the grandmasters are too old in the ratings list, and these old >>grandmasters are no longer playing at a GM Level. This is suppressing the >>average GM rating. > >I think you missed the point of his argument, which is that >a GM title is based on the strength a player at a certain time. > >The strength of that player can change, even worsen, but the >GM title will stay. > >The age of the player is just one cause, but the most obvious one. > >The GM's below 2500 can be having a bad period, or already be >over their top. If they were prodigys they can be well over their >top at their 20's already. > >The point Robert is making is that the GM title is awarded for >a peak performance, relative to the entire life of a GM. This is not correct, and has already been addressed in the prev. posts. The Title is not awarded for peak performance relative to the entire life of the GM. All it take to became a GM is 2500+ ELO and 2 norms. That is it, Why do you guys insist that at computer play as an Elite Grandmaster before it is considered playing at a normal Grandmaster level, This makes no sense. > >This is why your saying that there are GM's below 2500, hence >2500 is a good mark to be a GM, is flawed. No it is not flawed by cause your statment is not correct. > >-- >GCP
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.