On Feb 7, 9:10*pm, The Master wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:43*pm, ChessFire wrote:

This, IMO, is a good thread where all parties without exception bring
pertinent points to the discussion. Bravo! Phil

* I was hoping for a bit more-- more ideas on Mr. Gelfand's recent
rise that is, not
a Judge Judy styled appraisal of such a short, undeveloped bikini-like
thread.

You are looking for a romantic explanation when in fact it's complete
random. Why did the chicken cross the road? No complex reason but to
get to the other side. Why did a particle undergoing Brownian motion
move to the right and not to the left in a particular millisecond?
And so on.


* Personally I know nothing about Mr. Gelfand's style, his more recent
results or
his problem opponents. * But I do know that such things as the problem
opponent
can have a dramatic impact on results. *

But in the long run that washes out. Gelfand's rise has been over the
course of a decade. You cannot attribute his rise to a single
"brilliant tournament" or some such.




* As for Mr. Lopez's comment, I think he overlooked the fact that SAT
was not
aping Elo at all but attributing 'the glut of 2600 players' to
computer chess-- an
idea that makes no sense in that you cannot have a glut on just the
top end of
the rating pool, supported by thin air. *It's basically a literacy
problem-- one man
left behind. *And the aftermath of such a shortsighted policy.

No, if you read the thread carefully you'll see he's saying more
people are playing chess. It the law of large numbers, not that
computers are making the existing pool necessarily smarter.

RL