Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:38:23 06/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2001 at 13:08:10, Mark Young wrote: [snip] >Not by me, I don't have a problem with him being a GM, He teaches me chess on >chess wise. I am not the one who has a problem with a 2484 elo GM, It was not I >that suggest GM's are not GM's because they don't have a super high rating or >because they are old. However, when they are old, it really does become more and more of a "paper title" -- let's admit it. There is a huge inertia in ELO calculations. If you play ten years, starting when you are ten years old, even if you are a prodigy, it is doubtful you will start out above 1800. So, over a broad span of time, your ELO figures in thousands of games at below (say) 2200. Imagine the incredible performance you must achieve to pull the ELO over 2500! You must play tremendous chess for a very long time to do it. Now, examine the reverse side of the coin. Suppose you are a super GM who has played for decades. Maybe for 20 years your ELO was over 2600. If your ELO is now at 2495, it means you are playing 1800 chess. >All it takes is making the norms and have a rating of >2500, and GM Ashley's best elo was just that 2500. I am not the one who >suggested players like GM Smyslov (2491elo) with a higher elo the GM Ashley are >not worthy to be GM's or be calculated into what a average GM is. I don't think you are a bigot. He is a popular target and you probably saw someone else picking on him and used him as an example. At any rate, I think that Ashley would be a very good opponent for a computer. If you look at some of the games I posted, he can do quite well against very high level competition.
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.