Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:20:07 06/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2001 at 15:06:51, Côme wrote: >On June 20, 2001 at 13:38:23, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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. > >Hello ! >That is nonsense Dann and I hope you realise. A past 2600 player who have now >2495 doesn't play 1800 chess.All your paragraphe is nonsense may be you should >play chess before talking about it. >Best Regards >Alexandre Côme It is clear that his performance should be lower than 2495 in order to go down to 2495 and I think that this was Dann's point. I agree that the player does not play 1800 chess and probably 2400 or 2300 is more close to the truth. Uri
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.