Yes. I may be considered as a case.

I know very well my limitations. So, I try to do something inside my boundary.

I may be considered as a 'fool' in many aspects. I know it. So, I may be now considered as ' not fool' at least!

That's an exciting question. But I don't understand the analogy perfectly. What do you understand by success in life? A lot of money? Career? Be a good person? Contributing to the development of society? An algorithm is not a subject, but serves a specific purpose. It seems to me that this is a question of opportunity-risk ratio. If you say that the algorithm often produces "good" results (and rarely bad ones), then the risk must be quantifiable? Or am I make a mental mistake here?

Dear Shibabrata Pattanayak and Christian Arnold,

Now I would like to explain the essence of question more in detail. If you remember, there was such an old film Montparnasse 19. This film tells the story of the last months of life of the most famous artist of the 20th century Amedeo Modigliani, brilliantly played by the famous actor Gerard Philippe. This artist during his lifetime was not successful, no one wanted to buy his paintings and drawings, he lived in poverty and eventually died in poverty. In this film there is one more character - this is Morel, a man untalented, but he knows the true value of Modigliani's paintings. This Morel knew that his painting and drawings millions would cost, but he was waiting patiently for the death of Modigliani and finally waiting for this death; he bought for a pittance his entire collection of paintings and drawings. Here is shown the case when an intelligent person in the person of Modigliani does not know his own price, and an untalented person understands this price, because he owns the information.

Another example. Recently my favorite singer Dmitri Hvorostovsky died. In his younger years he lived in the provincial city of Krasnoyarsk and was known only to a narrow circle of people. He had a beautiful baritone and have been improving his voice, more and more ... However, he was not known. So, he has a beautiful voice, but neither he, nor any of his close people seemed to understand what a brilliant baritone he is. That is, he could sing all his life and not understand this fact, because there was no criterion. Finally, he participated in the competition in England and won the first prize. And the whole world recognized this singer. Everyone became his fans. Everyone admired "What a beautiful voice !!!". Now I ask: What has changed? How he sang by beautiful baritone before the competition, also he sang by fine baritone after the competition. Thus, we see that the evaluation of the voice in the person of a representative music competition decided the fate of this outstanding singer.

In fact, this issue was raised from the discussion https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_be_revised_todays_Complexity_Theory in order to create a model for evaluating algorithms in terms of their effectiveness. The main goal that has been pursued is to show that a good solution will only be understood as really good if it is recognized on the basis of some quantitative measure. Yes, solutions can be good, but why should we believe them? In science, intuition is not evaluated, in science confirmations and proofs are needed. My goal was to get possible answers in order to build a more adequate model for evaluating the effectiveness of algorithms. I just wanted to understand - how the researchers see the solution of this problem on the basis of examples from their personal life observations.