PDA

View Full Version : soft titles (sf Zonal threads, bumped with new posts)



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2017, 11:36 AM
Question is: are the soft titles happening: a) with support of ACF or b) against ACF wishes or c) irrespectively of the ACF stand or d) ACF does not care?

We have consistently supported proposals to tighten zonal titles and we strongly opposed an OCC proposal some years back that would have led to the OCC awarding all kinds of junk titles to juniors. It is just apparent though that FIDE's attempts to tighten the criteria in the previous regulatory cycle still left a lot of room for soft titles at the FM level depending on the strength of the field, and the problem with FIDE is that its four-year cycle for regulation changes is too slow to respond to evidence of problems.

After this one I think FIDE should limit the number of FM titles per zonal to five. Their plan to require a 2100 rating cap will still result in players well short of 2300 getting titles with clearly sub-2300 performances and then there will be a large administrative burden as other FMs-in-waiting gradually trickle over 2100 over coming years.

Capablanca-Fan
20-01-2017, 11:52 AM
His TPR was 2274 and he drew with a 2300+ junior and beat a high-2200s, both of whom are juniors.

Under the rules to come in from mid-year (subject to final approval) his title would be on ice until he cracked 2100, and ditto for Soo-Burrowes and probably others to come. However those rules are not in force for this Zonal.

So a very good creditable performance relative to his rating, but a little below 2300, but more importantly his post-tournament rating will still be below 2000. Not exactly normal FM standard.

Thebes
20-01-2017, 11:55 AM
Did 13/24 Women players seriously all get titles in the ladies event? more than half or am I misreading that...

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2017, 12:28 PM
Did 13/24 Women players seriously all get titles in the ladies event? more than half or am I misreading that...

To be expected when 4.5/9 is a CM title.

Bulldozer
23-01-2017, 09:19 AM
For those who don't accept their CM title for the reason of a low personal rating. This is a histogram of the CM holders' ratings. The minimum is 1133, the mean is 2016. Don't worry too much. :)

3370

MichaelBaron
23-01-2017, 09:25 AM
Wow...great job!

Kevin Bonham
23-01-2017, 09:48 AM
For those who don't accept their CM title for the reason of a low personal rating. This is a histogram of the CM holders' ratings. The minimum is 1133, the mean is 2016. Don't worry too much. :)

I've never known anyone to not accept the CM title for that reason! It's usually the stronger players who decline.

Interesting graph, thanks for posting. It shows that actually there are a lot of claims on the basis of rating, which would include claims based on past rating. Even after smoothing there appears to be an acceleration around c. 1850.

Bulldozer
23-01-2017, 09:55 AM
I've never known anyone to not accept the CM title for that reason! It's usually the stronger players who decline.
Could be. But personally, I was considering not to claim it until I reach at least 2000.

Ian Rout
23-01-2017, 10:51 AM
Interesting stats. The obvious question to arise is how the titles at the low end were achieved. According to the FIDE web page the lowest-rated CM, a South African, obtained the title from the 2015 Africa Schools Individual Chess Championships U9 Open, in which he came second with 7/9 against an entirely unrated field. The winner also obtained a CM title but has since progressed to 1301.

If regional age-group events can be designated as title tournaments perhaps OCC will look at holding a few to generate more titles.

Desmond
23-01-2017, 10:58 AM
Does your graph include people who held the CM but went on to get higher titles?

Bulldozer
23-01-2017, 11:18 AM
Does your graph include people who held the CM but went on to get higher titles?

No. I used the standard Jan 2017 rating list: https://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml

Adamski
23-01-2017, 05:13 PM
For those who don't accept their CM title for the reason of a low personal rating. This is a histogram of the CM holders' ratings. The minimum is 1133, the mean is 2016. Don't worry too much. :)

3370
Love this graph!

MichaelBaron
04-02-2017, 02:26 AM
Our Zonal got a mention in the article by legendary GM Sosonko on the Russian chess-news site. He is having a good ''laugh'' at our ''56 titles from a single event''. http://chess-news.ru/node/22718

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2017, 10:02 AM
Our Zonal got a mention in the article by legendary GM Sosonko on the Russian chess-news site. He is having a good ''laugh'' at our ''56 titles from a single event''. http://chess-news.ru/node/22718

Google Translate says he was saying these included GM titles - is that a correct translation?

In fact this was the first Oceania Zonal since before 1999 where nobody became an IM.

SquishyDoggy
04-02-2017, 11:05 AM
Our Zonal got a mention in the article by legendary GM Sosonko on the Russian chess-news site. He is having a good ''laugh'' at our ''56 titles from a single event''. http://chess-news.ru/node/22718

Yea but he probably laughes at anyone below IM (maybe even IM). In Russia unless you got your titles by acquiring the norms and the rating, you don't qualify for a true title in their eyes. FM and below is such a joke to them that I see many people don't even bother to get them. Just like I see many Chinese at 2600+ level don't even bother to get their GM title - unless your a potential world title challenger you're nothing in their eyes.

Andrew Hardegen
04-02-2017, 04:57 PM
Yea but he probably laughes at anyone below IM (maybe even IM). In Russia unless you got your titles by acquiring the norms and the rating, you don't qualify for a true title in their eyes.

I think it is a matter of perspective. If you compare 2 players of different strength, one will appear stronger and the other will appear weaker.

When comparing an `ordinary' FM to a top-100 player who is rated 400 points higher or more, the FM may appear to be weak.

However, I would guess that even in Russia or China, titled players (FM or higher) comprise a very small proportion of the chess-playing public. As such, these players would be considered to be `strong' by the vast majority of the population.


FM and below is such a joke to them that I see many people don't even bother to get them. Just like I see many Chinese at 2600+ level don't even bother to get their GM title - unless your a potential world title challenger you're nothing in their eyes.

ACF pays for all OTB titles (by `titles' I mean FM, WFM and above). I don't know, but maybe China, Russia and eastern European countries don't see a need to do this: maybe they believe that there are already enough active titled players to provide sufficient norm opportunities. There may be many players in these countries who qualify for titles, but might not be able to raise the application fee charged by FIDE.

Andrew Hardegen
04-02-2017, 05:05 PM
Our Zonal got a mention in the article by legendary GM Sosonko on the Russian chess-news site. He is having a good ''laugh'' at our ''56 titles from a single event''. http://chess-news.ru/node/22718

I imagine that there would be more than a few cantankerous old dinosaurs out there who believe that they, and they alone, are qualified to judge whether any particular player is worthy of a FIDE title.

However, these titles are awarded by FIDE. It is FIDE -- not the dinosaurs -- who write the FIDE Title Regulations, which specify the requirements.

All of the 56 players that will receive FIDE titles have met the requirements set out in the FIDE Title Regulations. So all 56 players are worthy of their titles.

I don't see how it can be argued that there is such a thing as a `soft title', since the requirements are the same for everyone.

Kaitlin
04-02-2017, 05:13 PM
Probably he doesn't know that everyday New Zealanders are modest and easy going and don't seek individual fame and glory unless it is forced upon them by FIDE rules. :cool:

Like a volcano all them titles were just simmering below the surface.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2017, 05:40 PM
I don't see how it can be argued that there is such a thing as a `soft title', since the requirements are the same for everyone.

Except that those requirements are much more easily achieved if you are a resident of Oceania which has Open Swiss Zonals with a midfield that is only strong club players than if you are a resident of somewhere else.

The players have indeed earned their titles fair and square under the rules made available to them. Some of the gripes just come from players who don't like it that getting a title - especially FM - used to be hard and is now a lot easier.

But there's also the point that the title system should convey useful information. A rating estimates that a player has a current playing strength, but that estimate might not be reliable. A title gained the hard way - especially at IM level and above - says that a player at some point in time proved that they could play at a certain very high level. If you play a 2400-rated GM, you know something about them that you didn't know from their rating.

Whereas once titles are too easily won at Zonals and other events, they no longer carry that meaning.

There is another side to this coin though - not only does the direct title system sometimes recognise performances that are below strength, but also the norms system sometimes fails to recognise above-strength performances. This is because of the requirements to play certain numbers of titled players. At Baku someone put a proposal that if you performed at 2600+ you should get a GM norm even if you didn't play three GMs, or a variant of it might have been that a 2500+ player counts as a GM even if they don't have a title. The QC rejected that and their logic for rejecting it is that winning titles the hard way is like joining a club. You have to perform against members of the club to show that you deserve to be let in.

Vlad
04-02-2017, 06:29 PM
I think some people anticipated the message but did not get the whole scale... While I like most of the articles written by G. Sosonko this one is particularly weak IMO.

First, he incorrectly claims that GM norms were received in the Oceania zonal 2017. This is so wrong given that nobody received even an IM norm.:)

Second, from what he is saying it looks like he does not understand how the norms are made. GM norms correspond to performing 2600+ and playing against 2400 or 2500 is not so important. In fact achieving a GM norm is much easier when stronger opponents are present. He is claiming that the existence of weaker GMs leads to more weaker GMs.

His main message is that the current GMs are not as good as they used to be. While partially I agree with this statement, I think it is a usual sentiment of an older GM - when we were younger the grass was greener.:)

So it has very little to do with this thread. He is effectively complaining about the current proper GMs like Molton and Max...

Desmond
04-02-2017, 08:27 PM
If you play a 2400-rated GM, you know something about them that you didn't know from their rating.Do you?

MichaelBaron
04-02-2017, 09:34 PM
Anyway, there are plenty of Russians, Ukrianians, Serbians, Hungarians etc. these days that simply bought their titles :)

ER
04-02-2017, 10:15 PM
Anyway, there are plenty of Russians, Ukrianians, Serbians, Hungarians etc. these days that simply bought their titles :)

I have heard that in Europe.

However, there's also a persistent rumour that the above nationalities include quite a few title sellers as well!
Considering the strong chess tradition of all of the above, the latter is rather more credible!

MichaelBaron
04-02-2017, 11:43 PM
I have heard that in Europe.

However, there's also a persistent rumour that the above nationalities include quite a few title sellers as well!
Considering the strong chess tradition of all of the above, the latter is rather more credible!

Obviously yes, buying and selling comes hand in hand.

Bulldozer
05-02-2017, 12:23 AM
Anyway, there are plenty of Russians, Ukrianians, Serbians, Hungarians etc. these days that simply bought their titles :)

My first hometown was famous for a title factory in 2000s. The factory's alleged "director" and the main beneficiary boosted himself to 2600+ being estimated as a strong club player (just below CM). However, he was very honest and never claimed a GM title. ;)

Vlad
05-02-2017, 08:58 AM
Afromeev?

ER
05-02-2017, 07:40 PM
Afromeev?

Haha, now I remember I had read an article about him!!!

Out of curiosity I checked the name in FIDE's ratings and I found that he is still a legit FM and IA
with a rating of 2646!

Thebes
22-03-2017, 10:38 PM
IM Ari Dale has passed 2400 rating.

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2017, 12:16 AM
The FIDE rule change which will slightly reduce the avalanche of soft titles was approved and starts from mid-2017:


0.62
For a direct title to be awarded immediately an applicant has to have achieved at some time or other a minimum rating as follows:
GM 2300 WGM 2100
IM 2200 WIM 2000
FM 2100 WFM 1900
CM 2000 WCM 1800
If an applicant is rated lower the title is awarded conditionally and will be awarded finally on request by the respective federation as soon as the minimum rating is achieved. Any player with a conditional title may take a lower title when they reach the required rating for that lower title.

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2017, 02:14 PM
The FIDE rule change which will slightly reduce the avalanche of soft titles was approved and starts from mid-2017:


0.62
For a direct title to be awarded immediately an applicant has to have achieved at some time or other a minimum rating as follows:
GM 2300 WGM 2100
IM 2200 WIM 2000
FM 2100 WFM 1900
CM 2000 WCM 1800
If an applicant is rated lower the title is awarded conditionally and will be awarded finally on request by the respective federation as soon as the minimum rating is achieved. Any player with a conditional title may take a lower title when they reach the required rating for that lower title.

Interesting that an IM's minimum is higher than a WGM's, and an FM's minimum is equal to the WGM's.

Garvinator
06-04-2017, 08:15 PM
Interesting that an IM's minimum is higher than a WGM's, and an FM's minimum is equal to the WGM's.And that a CM, which does not count for anything overall (free entry, assist with title players in norm tournaments) is given the same rating as WIM.

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2017, 10:06 PM
And that a CM, which does not count for anything overall (free entry, assist with title players in norm tournaments) is given the same rating as WIM.

I think the reason they did not push CM down lower is that they are totally sick of having to process such ridiculous numbers of CMs from Oceania tournaments. I'm quite impressed that they weren't made to take the restriction for CM out because the Development Commission was complaining about it quite a lot.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2017, 08:08 PM
Posts moved

Posts discussing the number of male and female GMs have been moved to a new thread in this section as they are not clearly relevant to soft titles.

SquishyDoggy
04-08-2017, 04:12 PM
Does the minimum rating requirement (2100 for FM) apply for the World Amateur Chess Championship U2000 and World Amateur Chess Championship U2300?

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2017, 08:10 PM
Does the minimum rating requirement (2100 for FM) apply for the World Amateur Chess Championship U2000 and World Amateur Chess Championship U2300?

It applies to all direct title events without exception.

SquishyDoggy
09-08-2017, 03:20 AM
So will there be an event like Asian Amateurs that has direct titles?

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2017, 09:54 AM
So will there be an event like Asian Amateurs that has direct titles?

I am pleased to report that Continental Amateur tournaments, where held, can only award direct CM/WCM titles. And these are conditional on rating like all other direct CM/WCM titles. :lol:

MichaelBaron
09-08-2017, 10:33 AM
I am pleased to report that Continental Amateur tournaments, where held, can only award direct CM/WCM titles. And these are conditional on rating like all other direct CM/WCM titles. :lol:

I am also very pleased what your report :).

SquishyDoggy
10-08-2017, 02:55 PM
Are there events which hand out higher titles? I heard the Oceania Juniors end of this year give IM to the winner but its not open to all ages.

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2017, 02:59 PM
Are there events which hand out higher titles? I heard the Oceania Juniors end of this year give IM to the winner but its not open to all ages.

The list of all the events that hand out cornflake box wrappers is here:

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=199&view=article

SquishyDoggy
10-08-2017, 05:56 PM
Haha wow

Has anyone actually became a GM by making the the final 16 of the world cup? I heard Kramnik got his GM title straight away or something...

I assume sub-continental is just the Zonals (right?). but whats world teams (or club)/continental teams (or club)/continental individual?, has Australia/Oceania actually been involved with any of these?

ElevatorEscapee
08-02-2019, 10:07 PM
[post moved from Zonal Titles thread - mod]

So which titles earned from this event are officially "soft titles", and which are "harder" ones?

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2019, 10:34 PM
So which titles earned from this event are officially "soft titles", and which are "harder" ones?

They've virtually all been soft in the sense of being easier to get than getting them the normal way. But the tendency on this board has been to show more respect for the title if the title-getter at least performs at, or more or less at, the rating limit for the title in question. So even though getting an FM title for a single 2300 performance is softer than getting it for having a 2300 rating, it's not the same grade of soft as being a 2000s player who performs at 2100.

Also from the Guam zonal on, the title getters will have to get their ratings within 200 points of the rating limit (or have done so in the past) before they get the title.

Tony Dowden
09-02-2019, 09:16 AM
So which titles earned from this event are officially "soft titles", and which are "harder" ones?

I'm sure you realise that neither of these categories are 'official'.

We just rely on the arbitration of a handful of armchair experts, so you need to put their terminology in context. For example, the extreme position is that every title gained outside Moscow is 'soft'. And, for those populating the far right, every divergent view from theirs is 'politically correct'. (Therefore we should just have one zone and never hold Olympiads. Moreover, we should abolish the idea of representing one's country and not recognise any international, ethnic or cultural differences.)

Just bear in mind that some of our experts may have a different starting point from yours or mine.

Tony Dowden
09-02-2019, 10:13 AM
I'm sure you realise that neither of these categories are 'official'.

...

TBH, most of the stuff about 'soft' and 'hard' titles is banter. The majority of CMs, FMs and IMs in Aust/NZ obtained their titles through zonals :lol:

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2019, 12:26 PM
TBH, most of the stuff about 'soft' and 'hard' titles is banter. The majority of CMs, FMs and IMs in Aust/NZ obtained their titles through zonals :lol:

Which just means if true that the majority of CM and FM titles in Aust/NZ are "soft" compared to such titles elsewhere, because there would be very few places besides Oceania where this is even close to being the case.

Also, while it's an overwhelming majority for CM, WCM, WFM and WIM, it's not quite a majority yet for FM and IM.

Regarding FMs, 27 of Australia's 56 FMs obtained their titles through Zonals, as did 8 of New Zealand's 20. By my count 6 of the 8 NZ Zonal-FMs have since reached live-2300 and would be FMs anyway, but only 4 of the 27 Australian Zonal-FMs have done so.

Regarding IMs, 8 of Australia's 27 IMs obtained their titles through Zonals, as did 3 of New Zealand's 6. By my count 3 of these Australian IMs would be IMs anyway by now, as would one of the NZ ones.

Tony Dowden
09-02-2019, 04:07 PM
Which just means if true that the majority of CM and FM titles in Aust/NZ are "soft" compared to such titles elsewhere, because there would be very few places besides Oceania where this is even close to being the case.

Also, while it's an overwhelming majority for CM, WCM, WFM and WIM, it's not quite a majority yet for FM and IM.

Regarding FMs, 27 of Australia's 56 FMs obtained their titles through Zonals, as did 8 of New Zealand's 20. By my count 6 of the 8 NZ Zonal-FMs have since reached live-2300 and would be FMs anyway, but only 4 of the 27 Australian Zonal-FMs have done so.

Regarding IMs, 8 of Australia's 27 IMs obtained their titles through Zonals, as did 3 of New Zealand's 6. By my count 3 of these Australian IMs would be IMs anyway by now, as would one of the NZ ones.

Thanks KB :) This data is interesting (and partially rebuts my argument above) but I think age-group titles (juniors as well as seniors/vets) could be bundled in with zonal titles, as that would give a clearer picture.

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2019, 06:10 PM
Thanks KB :) This data is interesting (and partially rebuts my argument above) but I think age-group titles (juniors as well as seniors/vets) could be bundled in with zonal titles, as that would give a clearer picture.

If you mean the direct titles arising from junior and senior/veterans events I'm not aware of any being awarded yet, though I believe 4 immediate direct FM titles were qualified for at the Oceania Youth (FIDE hasn't confirmed them yet). I don't know of any Australian getting a direct title from a senior/veterans event but maybe someone from NZ has. Once they are confirmed I'd be inclined to treat them similarly to zonal titles as an example of potentially "soft" title awards.

There is an age skew between Zonal titleholders and others; for instance the median year of birth for Aus/NZ Zonal-FMs and Zonal-IMs is 1979 compared to 1968 for other Aus/NZ FMs and IMs. This isn't because significantly more juniors are zonal titleholders; it's because the FMs born before 1960 are overwhelmingly FMs by rating.

There's also a tendency for the players who got their titles by non-Zonal means to be less active, but it's not as strong as might be expected. 43% of them are flagged as inactive by FIDE compared to 35% for those who got titles in Zonals. One notable thing is that almost all the Australian FMs whose titles came from the first few Oceania Zonals are now flagged as inactive in classic play.

I think once the current unconfirmed titles are processed it could be the case that there are slightly more active Aus/NZ FMs and IMs who got their titles as direct titles of some sort, than who didn't. So your claim will become true in a modified form even for these groups.

There is also one very old direct title case that was not an Oceania Zonal, and that's IM Shane Hill (AUS) who got a direct title in an Asian event before Oceania Zone existed. If anyone knows what event it was that would be interesting to know. It might have been some pre-Oceania Zonal.

Tony Dowden
09-02-2019, 09:23 PM
If you mean the direct titles arising from junior and senior/veterans events I'm not aware of any being awarded yet, though I believe 4 immediate direct FM titles were qualified for at the Oceania Youth ... I don't know of any Australian getting a direct title from a senior/veterans event but maybe someone from NZ has. Once they are confirmed I'd be inclined to treat them similarly to zonal titles as an example of potentially "soft" title awards ...

Thanks for your interesting reply KB.

I was thinking of NZ players CM Alphaeus Ang and FM Bob Gibbons, so had assumed they were other examples. Alphaeus (rated 1915 at the time, now 2277) received his CM title at an ASEAN event for juniors in Macau in 2014 and Bob (rated 1954 at the time, now 1874 but probably peaked above 2100 in the 1990s) received his FM title at the 2016 Asian Seniors in Myanmar.

Tony Dowden
09-02-2019, 09:27 PM
... So your claim will become true ...

My claim was true all the long because I bundled the IMs, FMs and CMs. I left out GMs (of course) and women's titles.

MichaelBaron
09-02-2019, 10:21 PM
Its Ok to award titles based on past achievements though.
I would not mind honorary titles for the likes of Hamilton - who definitely deserved to be an IM along with the late Max Fuller.

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2019, 11:46 PM
My claim was true all the long because I bundled the IMs, FMs and CMs.

Fair enough - the Zonal CMs rather swamp the others on that basis. Australia has 50 CMs and NZ has 25. I think 49 of the Australian CMs were by Zonal and one was by rating. Suspect nearly all the NZ ones would be by Zonal as well (noting Ang who you mentioned above as an exception.)

I've never had an Australian direct title to process from a Senior event. An Australian would have got a direct IM title from an Asian Senior - and some other players would have got lesser titles from the same event - but missed out because of the technicality of the Chief Arbiter not being yet titled at the time of the event.

I've doubtless said it before on this thread a few times but I couldn't care less about soft CM titles. I think that ideally the purpose of CM is to be a soft title; after all "candidate master" only means someone might be a "master" someday; it doesn't mean they actually are one. CM titles also don't have any role in helping opponents get GM/IM norms, unlike FM and even WFM. I think FIDE should give them out in vast numbers to make money for itself at the expense of players who want to pay for them, and shield the higher titles better. However apparently in Europe there are now quite a few CMs by rating, who aren't good enough to get FM, and who are quite antsy about the fact that average level club players on the other side of the world can get their title.

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2019, 12:34 AM
Its Ok to award titles based on past achievements though.
I would not mind honorary titles for the likes of Hamilton - who definitely deserved to be an IM along with the late Max Fuller.

I would love it if the title system gave due credit to veterans who, based on their strength, would easily have obtained such titles today.

I also think they should make CM fully retrospective. For a strong player who might like to have a title of some sort, it's a bit of a joke that having been 2200 twenty years ago doesn't get them CM, but barely above-average club-level players have got it in Zonals.

jammo
10-02-2019, 03:12 AM
Its Ok to award titles based on past achievements though.
I would not mind honorary titles for the likes of Hamilton - who definitely deserved to be an IM along with the late Max Fuller.

In the past FIDE has awarded honorary GM titles, e.g. they offered GM title to Wade and Golombek. Wade declined, Golombek accepted.

MichaelBaron
22-10-2020, 11:39 PM
How can he be FM with just 2100?

Reminds me of an old saying by one well-known Russian IM (Panov): When I am playing someone with a Master Title - I always respect him and consider him to be deserving of his title...unless in the course of the game...he proves the opposite!
Zonal titles are different!

ER
23-10-2020, 12:45 PM
Reminds me of an old saying by one well-known Russian IM (Panov): When I am playing someone with a Master Title - I always respect him and consider him to be deserving of his title...unless in the course of the game...he proves the opposite!

A classic by IM Panov! :)


Zonal titles are different!

slightly or significantly though? :P

MichaelBaron
23-10-2020, 02:50 PM
A classic by IM Panov! :)



slightly or significantly though? :P

Won't mention names as it may be disrespectful towards some of the titles recipients.

ER
23-10-2020, 04:56 PM
Won't mention names as it may be disrespectful towards some of the titles recipients.

Ok I 'll keep my big mouth shut then! :D

MichaelBaron
23-10-2020, 07:45 PM
Ok I 'll keep my big mouth shut then! :D

I can recall my chess student telling me proudly he has beaten an FM. Great effort by the student (he has been improving steadily)....but the quality of the game was ....not what you would not expect from a titled player. Not that the FM blundered...he just played rather poorly...even though since his rating was under 2000...he did not play that much below his rating.

Vlad
23-10-2020, 10:50 PM
Are you saying there is a high quality level associated with an FM title? I thought these titles have been mostly used as Christmas gifts. :owned:

MichaelBaron
23-10-2020, 11:19 PM
Are you saying there is a high quality level associated with an FM title? I thought these titles have been mostly used as Christmas gifts. :owned:

I am saying there is 2300 rating that used to be associated with the title. Of course, you can say that for Grandmasters it never meant a big deal :). Likewise, there is now a GM who got his title by winning African continental champs his Fide is about 2350 and I do not think he ever scored a proper GM norm let alone got his rating close to 2500. Re IMs ....once a Certain Melbourne-based Junior (nothing personal - he is a great guy) will get his Fide rating to 2200 - he will get an IM title. What sort of gifts are the IM titles then? :)

Lekko
29-10-2020, 09:44 PM
Won't mention names as it may be disrespectful towards some of the titles recipients.

Zonal CMs are a different matter however ;)

antichrist
30-10-2020, 01:30 AM
Are you saying there is a high quality level associated with an FM title? I thought these titles have been mostly used as Christmas gifts. :owned:

I have been shocked by the inconsistencies I have witnessed in a few online games by FM level players. Prior to this I had only analyzed GM games and some had lacked attacking flare but that was usually the only complaint.