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
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
