I have seen big rating increments of others shortly before the congress, which did not look like coincidence. In some years, I myself decided to enter, play particularly seriously or skip tournaments before a congress to better influence my rating. It works. If average rating were used, it would not work.

Please give several examples

I have not collected such examples in writing but only kept their existence in my memory.

Robert, are you suggesting that despite asking cassandra for mathematical proofs on their views, here you are happy to provide anecdotal medium term memory to support your own?

Yes. (Not all my opinions are related to formal mathematics. Does this surprise you?)

Hint: Look at Russian 4d~6d with sudden jumps shortly before a congress during the last 10+ years, esp. such Russians who actually play in the EC.

Hint: Concerning my own ratings shortly before an EC, read what I wrote elsewhere.

Russian dan players?
Hmm ...
I am pretty sure, we have such tournaments only in chess, where you can get some rating, without even playing your games.

Tell us names, Robert. I will check the tournaments they played before EGC

_________________
Go lessons: http://breakfast.go4go.net/
Russian Go news: https://vk.com/go_secrets/

I do not know the names by heart, also I would have to check the prior ECs, the names there and everybody's rating development. I am not suggesting unplayed, rated tournament games but specific attendance of suitable tournaments shortly before an EC so as to get a sudden, big rating jump.

I will just assume you were lying then.

Why is it good to have the high rating on EGC?
With big supergroup, even 4-dans have chances to enter it.
And for lower groups high rating has no meaning

_________________
Go lessons: http://breakfast.go4go.net/
Russian Go news: https://vk.com/go_secrets/

I think that top 4 European players on EGC should play a knockout to find out the one who gets first priority. For other tournaments - choose by rating. And dont mind Robert, he often gives statements without any evidence and proof. I do not see a possibility to create some great gaps in ratings.

_________________

[This post by Javaness was liked by: breakfast]

A perfect example why the Likes numbers are meaningless. Boast about distrusting other human beings' character and your number increases.

Have you seen anybody who does not? It is a necessity in case of lacking time. During the last 30 days, I have spent ca. 2+ hours per day on average working out my messages here. I simply cannot research in evidence for each of my statements.

Yet surely you can understand other people's frustrations when you ask them to do exactly that on a number of topics on here?

Presumably you refer to Cassandra, his claims to prove mathematically and his frequent failure to do so immediately? Claimed mathematical proofs have to be exactly that or ought not to be called so.

Robert, than this maybe isnt a job for you. For example, I advertise an event here and say the prize fund is 10000 Euro. A lot of people show up, and in the end I do not give any money at all but give 10 Euro as the first place award. And what now? I can always say : I spent a lot of time organising this, I didnt have enough time to spend on every detail...

_________________

You are losing sight of reasonable scale. I already do much more than you'd expect from a rules commission member: I even research in quite some aspects everybody else might have overlooked entirely. There are limits though. Even the most serious volunteers have limits in their available time. If you want yet more (like proving the statistically obvious), then you need to ensure payment for the work.

And what exactly are you doing?

_________________

I totally agree with you about time constraints Robert. For what it is worth, I think you do put in a very large amount of time into a number of Go-related pursuits, such as rules work, writing your own books etc, and would never claim that you were slacking on the job.

However, you must understand that on L19 (and elsewhere) you operate a double standards policy. When you raise an anecdotal opinion that you consider robust enough to believe yourself based on your own experience, you post it as if your opinion should make it valuable. When other people do likewise, you ask for further evidence or proof, and consider it poor evidence until you get it. How can you not see the imbalance with claiming lack of resources (primarily time, but also money) to invest supporting your points with evidence and proof, yet expecting others to put their resources into doing exactly that?

I suspect a large part of it is you consider yourself to be an expert in most of these areas you choose to post, and therefore feel that your opinion or experience is in itself valuable evidence. You seem to be unaware, or not interested perhaps, in the fact that other people don't feel that way. You are just one more poster, and your arguments are as good or as bad as if they were raised by Joe Bloggs - if they are well supported, they are good arguments, if they are not, they are not.

Understand the difference! Both Javaness and I want to see evidence for statements. Javaness calls me a liar because he doubts my unsupported statement; I do not call people liars just because and when I doubt their unsupported statements.

You should also distinguish different kinds of topics! Mathematics, proposals for supposed official treatment, private opinion statements, etc. all deserve or even require different treatment.

The problem is that it would not take you very long to back up your words. You are unemployed (I believe) and have seemingly plenty of time to indulge posting and reading here. I asked you to give an example, you choose not to.

I have even examined some tournaments myself and found no evidence for your claim.
So what am I supposed to think Robert? Please tell me.