[TimG]

How do you determine whether someone is an expert in a field? Is there some minimum set of skills or knowledge of teh field that a person must attain? Or, is it simply some percentage of the entire population that is considered an expert.

In bridge, for example, is a knowledge of certain techniques and theories enough to qualify someone as an expert? Or, is the top 1% or 0.1% or whatever percantage you choose an expert even if they don't meet a certain standard (or if some who are below the percatage meet the standard)?

Tim

[epeeist]

Humorous reply followed by more serious (and unfortunately overlong) reply... With the obvious disclaimer, while I may be expert at some things, bridge is unfortunately not one of them...

"Expert" on BBO, at least, is insufficiently precise, because one who is expert in any one of several disciplines may rate him or herself as "expert", and others don't know which is applicable. For instance, some who rank themselves as experts are:

1. Experts at being rude;
2. Experts at postcognition (knowing what should have been done, but only when it's too late);
3. Experts at shifting blame on to their partner;
4. Experts at overestimating their own skill; or rarely
5. Experts at bidding (not necessarily using partner's system...) or play.

More seriously, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be asking whether "expert" is a description of some absolute level of skill ("knowledge of certain techniques...") or instead a relative level of skill ("top 1% or..."). You can define the term however you want, but I think "expert" normally requires some minimum absolute level of skill. Even the "best" at something might not be an expert.

Myself, I don't agree that knowledge of theories and techniques makes one an "expert" at least in respect of playing bridge. An "expert" bridge player has to, most of the time, bid and play well/very well. That's it. Someone who can e.g. analyze hands very well, but isn't a fast enough thinker to bid and play effectively, may be a great analyst, may even be an expert analyst, but is not an expert bridge player. Being an expert bidder or defender, of course, requires that one be "in sync" with one's partner, and have sufficient knowledge of the partnership bidding system and signalling so as to bid and defend effectively -- so it's possible to have an expert pair where neither partner, alone, might be all that special. When it comes to expert declarer play, it's possible to be "expert" without necessarily having a detailed knowledge of systems (except, knowledge of opponent signals may be important), that is, one might be a sort of "instinctual" expert at play, easily visualizing all the hands, etc.

Re my point about absolute skill level vs. relative skill level, I'll try to use a real-world analogy. As far as I know, fresco painting (like the Sistine chapel, where one has to paint very quickly I think each section done within 20 minutes while the plaster is still wet) is not much practiced (if at all) today. So it's quite possible, that while there once were expert fresco painters (such as Michaelangelo), that today, even the best living fresco painter might not be an "expert" because he or she is not highly skilled enough to be considered an expert. So I disagree with the top 1%/0.1% criteria for "expert" in most instances -- I think there's some minimum absolute level of skill required to be an "expert".

[inquiry]

What is an expert?

Instead of considering an expert as a person who knows everything about the subject, consider them a person that knows more about the subject (bridge, computers, etc), than anyone else handy.

So at work at one time, I was considered the computer expert (boy what a lame bunch of people we were).

With such a definition, many people come to BBO with the experience of being the strongest player in their little local group. Be it among family members and neighbors (my mom tells me all the time how good I am at bridge)... or local club (I win at the once month game down at the YMCA nearly everytime I play, and that is at least seven games year), to maybe even winning regularily against the field at the retirement home (sure many of the older players nod off to sleep during the play of the hand, but yuo can wake them up).

These people, often have no scale to tell how good, or how bad their game really is. When I went to college, I thought myself an expert becasue I could beat all the "adults" in my parents bridge club (not duplicate mind you). At college I discovered pairs, and after a few months, I thought myself expert, because I could win nearly week. When I did my post-doctoral trianing, I found a real club playing three times a day, and eventually I thought myself an expert because I could win more than a fair share. When I went to work, people occaasionally would pay my hotel bill and entry fee to play with them (making me I guess a pro, but I never took more than that), so I thought myself an expert.

Now, years and years later, with study of the best players in the world, and with too much time analyzing to figure out what an expert REALLY is, one can begin to see that maybe the number of true experts... is really, really small... because the more I learn about this game, the more I see I didn't know when I was (incorrectly) SURE I was an expert, and the more I see I need to learn.

Ben

[Yzerman]

Hi,

I have been playing duplicate/organized bridge now since 98. I have worked my way through a series of "mentors" in live bridge. Each time I had come across a new person who wanted to play with me, and help me learn the game these persons all suffered from EXTREMELY inflated opinions of themself (DISCLAIMER - my partner of 5-6 years who was and still is partner and mentor i do not include in this criticism).

Personally, what I believe separates "experts" from other "good players", is a WILLINGNESS to learn as well as a touch of humility (the ability to admit wrongdoing and learn from it). I can always recognize a good player, because they are constantly analyzing hands, looking for ways to improve, looking for infrequent positions, etc. My first mentor, is a Gold Life Master (>2500 ACBL masterpoints), a very good card player but just plain stubborn and would refuse to play anything but SAYC, and refuse to take risks during play and defense. A few people came along after him, and once again being stubborn and close/narrow minded led to the demise of our partnerships.

I was indoctrinated into the circles of the best players in my area in 98/99. I immediately acknowledged that these people were REALLY experts. After EVERY game, we would go out afterwards and discuss EVERY hand with a fine tooted comb. These were the best players in my area, and they still discuss EVERY deal and EVERY card played and were constantly looking for ways to improve. This experience has convinced me that in order to become a REAL expert a few prerequisites must be satisfied;

1 - Natural Ability
2 - Experience
3 - Willingness to admit mistakes, and learn from them
4 - Willingness to remain open minded, and experiment with new things
5 - Take the game SERIOUSLY, true experts have a passion and desire to succeed

I have been in circles of good players (so called 'professionals') that have little more to do with their time then belittle lesser players or crow about their extravagent card play or bidding. I have ran across people that upon learning something new (new bidding method or card position) think by merit of learning something 'new and cool' are by default 'experts' without a willingness to REALLY learn. As an example, I dont know how many times I have come across players on BBO that have just learned multi 2D and I guess 'by association' these people assume the title of 'expert' because they can play that cool 2D opening bid without ANY clue of what it means.

This conversation, obviously, gets me pretty irate as I see people post 'expert' on profile and then meander through mediocre, or even lesser, results. I am personally convinced, that a true 'expert' is not only someone that has achieved but is also a STUDENT of the game, as well as someone with an open mind that you can easily discuss the game with.

[goodwintr]

There is a definition of "expert" in the Encyclopedia of Bridge (at least there is in the latest edition I have, which is 1984). I goes,

EXPERT. A player of conceded skill. The caliber of the player accorded this title will vary with the circles in which he regularly plays; expertise cannot be measured by masterpoints or in any other mechanical way, such as by having won one tournament or even by having played in international competition.
The title of expert will probably be recognized as valid only when it has been awarded by a verdict of the expert's peers. It is, however, loosely used to characterize anyone who plays better than the usual level of the game in which the player plays.

I guess that means you are an expert if your fellow competitors think you are an expert -- which might not be a very helpful definition. Still, it does have the merit of eliminating "self-styled experts" from the category, since the title would have to be awarded by others, not by oneself.

T.L.Goodwin

[Free]

Ofcourse being expert changes according to field. In some fields I always win, in other fields I'm sure I would lose most of the time (for now ). What am I then? Worldclass? A newbie?

I think experts can deal with the top in their country. I don't say you have to win against them all the time, but if you're not afraid of them, if you win some and you lose some, then I'd consider you as an expert. And ofcourse, to win some, you might need some knowledge of declarer play, defense, bid judgement,..., it's a vicious circle imo.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Aug 27 2004, 08:07 PM, said:

How do you determine whether someone is an expert in a field? Is there some minimum set of skills or knowledge of teh field that a person must attain? Or, is it simply some percentage of the entire population that is considered an expert.

In bridge, for example, is a knowledge of certain techniques and theories enough to qualify someone as an expert? Or, is the top 1% or 0.1% or whatever percantage you choose an expert even if they don't meet a certain standard (or if some who are below the percatage meet the standard)?

Tim

Hi Tim

Sadly, I don't think that there are any really satisfactory answers to your question. From my perspective, the only real definition is recognition of status by other expert players.

I'll note in passing that this same issue crops up in an enormous number of arenas. The most significant is the hiring process within most large companies. In many cases, companies need to hire individuals with expertise in one or more fields. However, the individuals making the hiring decisions typically lack the technical expertise to evaluate the candidate. From my perspective, the best candiadates rarely are able to get their resumes through the HR filters.

In any case, the stakes for this type of decision are MUCH higher than those surrounding bridge. Given how poorly the process works in the real world, I have little hope that we'll solve it.

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Aug 28 2004, 07:14 AM, said:

TimG, on Aug 27 2004, 08:07 PM, said:

How do you determine whether someone is an expert in a field?  Is there some minimum set of skills or knowledge of teh field that a person must attain?  Or, is it simply some percentage of the entire population that is considered an expert.

In bridge, for example, is a knowledge of certain techniques and theories enough to qualify someone as an expert?  Or, is the top 1% or 0.1% or whatever percantage you choose an expert even if they don't meet a certain standard (or if some who are below the percatage meet the standard)?

Tim

Hi Tim

Sadly, I don't think that there are any really satisfactory answers to your question. From my perspective, the only real definition is recognition of status by other expert players.

I'll note in passing that this same issue crops up in an enormous number of arenas. The most significant is the hiring process within most large companies. In many cases, companies need to hire individuals with expertise in one or more fields. However, the individuals making the hiring decisions typically lack the technical expertise to evaluate the candidate. From my perspective, the best candiadates rarely are able to get their resumes through the HR filters.

In any case, the stakes for this type of decision are MUCH higher than those surrounding bridge. Given how poorly the process works in the real world, I have little hope that we'll solve it.

The same could be said for our political process too, but I won't open up that can of worms.

[Flame]

An expert on BBO should be a player who
1. understand the law of total tricks ,
2. can solve 90% of the play/diffence problems in bridge magazines.
In reality among BBO experts there are 20-25% would better put adv as skill, 5% should put inter or less.

[luke warm]

Flame, on Aug 28 2004, 07:15 PM, said:

An expert on BBO should be a player who
1. understand the law of total tricks ,
2. can solve 90% of the play/diffence problems in bridge magazines.
In reality among BBO experts there are 20-25% would better put adv as skill, 5% should put inter or less.

again i'm in agreement with richard... peer recognition seems to be the absolute best judge of skill level.. i understand lott and i *think* 90% of the play probs is about right for me, but i'm far from an expert

i remember this question was asked once before, someone asked for the difference between advanced, expert, and world class... claus had a clever (not sure how correct it was) reply... he posted a picture of rodwell and labeled it 'expert'... then one of meckstroth labeled 'advanced'... finally, the two of them together, labeled 'world class'

to me, the real expert plays at a very high level for a long period of time (at one sitting as well as over a period of years)... so stamina is one of the criteria.. the ability to concentrate for longer periods of time than others

as an example, i might play relatively evenly with or against some of the better players here, over the course of a shortish (12 or 16 boards) match... the longer the match, though, the more the real expert will shine

[keylime]

Experts.....hmmm how about they are known on a last name basis? Or, better yet, they give free lessons at a local regional? Or maybe they've wrote a book?

With that said, I give you Dee Berry, Eugene Chan, Al French, Paul Soloway, the Frasers, and of course, Ron Smith. True experts in skill, and personality (especially Al French, CLASS ACT!)