Of course it would be nice to have a standardized ELO based system so that you can compare ratings directly. But this seems unlikely to happen on purpose. The way it could happen is if some organization becomes the defacto standard due to popularity - but I don't think that has happened even in chess. Of course there is FIDE which is international, but not used for lesser events that the average Joe plays in.
I don't like the term professional attached as a title. You are professional if you make a living doing something, right? But I think there needs to be titles AND ratings. Titles do not have to be based on ratings, it could be based on specific achievements and once you have a title it seems to me that you should get to keep it - as a matter of dignity. At least for certain kinds of title. "World Champion" of course is not a title you get to keep. - Don On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 21:53 +0100, dave.de...@planet.nl wrote: > Michael: > > Let's say that active Pros should have 2800+, though > players with 2750+ > might still be professional strength. > I think by that definition there would be many players with a > professional rank who wouldn't have professional strength. > I don't see any point in arbitrarily picking a EGF rating number and > then defining it as the dividing line for professional strength. What > is the basis for the number 2750? And why would 2750 be better than > 2700? > > Michael: > > Catalin was over 2800 during his time as an active pro > (peaking at 2821 in 2004). He has obviously gotten > weaker since he > stopped playing pro tournaments, just like Guo, who > has been out of the > pro scene for so long that I think it's fair to say > she doesn't have pro > strength anymore. > > I can imagine that Catalin and Guo won't be able to compete at 5p > level anymore, but you think it is fair to say they dropped below > professional strength altogether. > Why do you think that's fair to say? > > It's true that professional ranks reflect lifetime achievements and > not current strength, but strong players don't just lose a couple of > stones in strength when they stop competing actively. > The may lose some strength, but only a little: about one stone at > most. So a former 1p may drop below professional level, but a former > 5p is likely to keep professional strength with progressing age). > > To me, having a professional rank defines professional strength > (perhaps excepting pensioned 1p and 2p pros). And if amateurs can > compete with weaker professionals, they have professional strength. > That's it. > > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
