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/