Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:52:35 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 11:01:30, Mark Young wrote: >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. > Because to earn the GM title, a human _must_ play at a 2600+ level for 24-30 games. If you don't understand the Elo system and the "normal curve" I suppose we can go into that. FIDE apparently does... and hence the 2600+ "spike" in the rating curve to show that a player _really_ is a GM, and not just "lucky" in a couple of tournaments. If I were re-doing the FIDE rules for computers I would put in a "bound" so that the norms have to be earned within N events, not just over a "lifetime" since a program can play so many events that statistics _demand_ that even a 2400 program will produce a "norm" here and there just because of good luck. > >> >>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.