| Equinorm@AOL.com 2005-06-20, 8:33 pm |
| Mr. Sloan:
You said:
quote:
> I am told by a person who is a rated chess master and who also has a
> Ph.D. degree in Math that the amount of knowledge and effort to get a
> Ph.D. degree is about the same as the amount it takes to get you up to
> 1500 in chess.
I suspect the average math Ph.D could become a 1500 elo player in chess
with a relatively small fraction of the effort it took to obtain the
match Ph.D. I don't think the two are anywhere near equivalent in
terms of total effort.
And you said:
quote:
> I was surprised at this but them he said to count all the people who
> have Ph..D. degrees in math and compare them to the number who have
> 1500 ratings in chess. You will find that more have a Ph.D. degree in
> math.
I strongly doubt this statistic. I would guess that there are many
more 1500+ elo players than math Ph.Ds. Many times more.
And you said:
quote:
> Also, count the length of time it takes. In 3-5 years a person can get
> a Ph.D. drgree in math. It takes much longer to reach 1500 in chess.
Very few people get a Ph.D in math in 3 to 5 years, unless you are
ingnoring the necessary undergraduate work. In any event, the chess
player who puts in the same amount of time and intellectual effort as
the math student seeking his doctorate is fairly likely to achieve 1500
elo in a matter of months, not years.
And you said:
quote:
> Also, everyone who tries eventually gets a Ph.D. degree in Math. Most
> never make it to 1500 in chess.
I don't believe that everyone who tries eventually gets a Ph.D in math.
In fact, I would guess that both (i) the group of people who actually
do try to get a math Ph.D is a relatively select group; and (ii) that a
significant percentage of this relatively select group fail to get a
math Ph.D.
Although I don't see anything wrong with cautioning a chess player from
setting overambitious goals, I think you have taken it too far here. I
suspect that not a single one of your points comparing obtaining a math
Ph.D to a 1500 elo in chess is even remotely accurate. This false
comparison seems likely to me to discourage a chess player from setting
reasonably obtainable goals for himself/herself.
I understand that you are "passing on" statements from a third party,
but you do so in such a way that suggests your agreement with some
fairly risible propositions. I think that Mr. Leverett's comparison of
becoming a chess master (as opposed to a 1500 elo player) to getting a
college degree is likely much closer to the truth. And I don't think
that the college degree would have to be in math (one of the
intellectually more difficult majors) to make the comparison
reasonable. Talent is also a factor and results may vary, of course.
I am not a math Ph.D, but I have known some math graduate students.
The above is just my opinion.
- Geof Strayer
|