Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:56:57 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 why your saying that there are GM's below 2500, hence >2500 is a good mark to be a GM, is flawed. > >-- >GCP He would miss a point? never. :) I don't buy the idea that at some "age" we consider them over the hill, any more than I buy that for mandatory retirement requirements that are set in most states here in the USA. I would no longer consider a GM in the "average rating" calculation if his rating has dropped significantly from his peak. IE GM Edward Lasker was probably a 2300 player when he played chess 4.x a match several years ago. Nowhere near his peak. Korchnoi is _still_ a handfull for any chess player.
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.