PDA

View Full Version : Define Super GM



Desmond
06-11-2007, 07:34 PM
The question of what makes a super GM arose in another thread. I came across this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparing_top_chess_players_throughout_history) page which lists players' peak ratings of those over 2699. Quite an impressive bunch, but maybe some people would crop the list more, or indeed less. So cast your vote.

CameronD
06-11-2007, 08:07 PM
Personally, I dont think a super GM (I prefer great Grandmaster) should be decided by ratings.

I'd prefer having the requirement of holding the World Championship for x years. The chess community should try and keep some meaning to the title with they want it and really make it an exclusive honour. No more than 1-2 every 10 years or generation at the most.

note - Personally, I think the standards for GM should be increased to 2600 and IM to 2500. There's to many GM and IM in the world today, decreasing its value.

Axiom
06-11-2007, 08:14 PM
note - Personally, I think the standards for GM should be increased to 2600 and IM to 2500. There's to many GM and IM in the world today, decreasing its value.
i applaud the axiomaticness of this analysis.
:clap: :clap: :clap: unless of course the increase is directly proportional to the increase in either the chess playing population or population in general.

Kevin Bonham
06-11-2007, 08:15 PM
As a first attempt, I'd suggest a super-GM should have spent five or more years in the top 40 by rating within the last decade and while active. For younger players (say under 22) one or two years would be sufficient.

Defining it by a set rating doesn't work because of FIDE inflation.

CameronD
06-11-2007, 08:20 PM
As a first attempt, I'd suggest a super-GM should have spent five or more years in the top 40 by rating within the last decade and while active. For younger players (say under 22) one or two years would be sufficient.

Defining it by a set rating doesn't work because of FIDE inflation.

I dont know how the top 40 work... but would players be able to minimise how much they play to protect there rating to get that title????

Axiom
06-11-2007, 08:25 PM
Defining it by a set rating doesn't work because of FIDE inflation.
hence cam's suggested adjusted cut-off marks.

Duff McKagan
06-11-2007, 08:33 PM
My choice on this poll was influenced by the article:

http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/

Aaron Guthrie
07-11-2007, 01:51 AM
I'd say whoever gets invited to Linares etc. (insert appropriate qualifications here)

Garrett
07-11-2007, 06:28 AM
I'd say a 'Super' GM is in the top 8-12 in the world.

If we say super GM is top 40 then we need a new classication 'super-duper' GM which would be top 8-12 in the world.

Intuition
07-11-2007, 08:27 AM
A GM who is consistently in the top 10 only occasionally dropping lower...2700 is a bit to broad eg. bareev was 2700+ not too long ago and few would class him as a super GM

Spiny Norman
07-11-2007, 09:39 AM
Why can't Super GM be a title that is not conferred for life? e.g. for those currently over 2700 (or 2750) they can be referred to as a Super GM. If their rating drops, they are still a GM, but no longer a Super GM (a "former Super GM" perhaps). Just base it always on the current rating list.

Intuition
07-11-2007, 11:46 AM
Why can't Super GM be a title that is not conferred for life? e.g. for those currently over 2700 (or 2750) they can be referred to as a Super GM. If their rating drops, they are still a GM, but no longer a Super GM (a "former Super GM" perhaps). Just base it always on the current rating list.

there is already enough silly titles around....however GM itself is loosing significance...just beacuse you are a GM or FM or whatever it doesnt mean you are 'good' or elite in anyway as it once did (an extreme example is WFM's rated around 1700)... maybe super or elite GM might be the solution or it might make other titles titles even more insignificant??? :hmm:

CameronD
07-11-2007, 01:18 PM
there is already enough silly titles around....however GM itself is loosing significance...just beacuse you are a GM or FM or whatever it doesnt mean you are 'good' or elite in anyway as it once did (an extreme example is WFM's rated around 1700)... maybe super or elite GM might be the solution or it might make other titles titles even more insignificant??? :hmm:


Without naming names... (she's a really nice person)
I defeated a WFM rated 1400 in a classical rated game, she usually finishes mid-table in weekend tournaments in Queensland.

It's not her fault, its the system, plus inflated ratings as she scored above 50% against 2200 opponents when she picked up the title. Makes you wonder about the FIDE rating system though

Intuition
07-11-2007, 01:40 PM
I defeated a WFM rated 1400 in a classical rated game

nice effort, not many of us can say we have won against a chess master :)

UELleida
07-11-2007, 11:53 PM
Without naming names... (she's a really nice person)
I defeated a WFM rated 1400 in a classical rated game, she usually finishes mid-table in weekend tournaments in Queensland.

It's not her fault, its the system, plus inflated ratings as she scored above 50% against 2200 opponents when she picked up the title. Makes you wonder about the FIDE rating system though

Exactly. Like Nigel Short says, just get rid of silly titles altogether. The original GMs were world class players, i.e. the title was awarded to the highest category of player. Look at how far we have come since then. Plenty of silly titles. Women's chess titles are the most ridiculous titles ever invented, as both sexes compete on a level playing field.

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2007, 03:14 PM
Exactly. Like Nigel Short says, just get rid of silly titles altogether. The original GMs were world class players, i.e. the title was awarded to the highest category of player.
Indeed, only one or two awards per year. Fischer gained his title when he qualified for the Candidates, the winner of which would challenge the World Champ.


Look at how far we have come since then. Plenty of silly titles. Women's chess titles are the most ridiculous titles ever invented, as both sexes compete on a level playing field.
Yeah, they are a sexist insult to women.