View Poll Results: What rating makes a Super GM?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Any GM is super-dooper by me

    1 10.00%
  • 2600+

    0 0%
  • 2650+

    2 20.00%
  • 2700+

    4 40.00%
  • 2710+

    0 0%
  • 2720+

    0 0%
  • 2730+

    1 10.00%
  • 2740+

    1 10.00%
  • 2750+

    1 10.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Define Super GM

  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,212

    Define Super GM

    The question of what makes a super GM arose in another thread. I came across this 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.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  2. #2
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    928
    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.
    Last edited by CameronD; 06-11-2007 at 08:10 PM.

  3. #3
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronD
    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.
    unless of course the increase is directly proportional to the increase in either the chess playing population or population in general.
    Last edited by Axiom; 06-11-2007 at 08:19 PM.

  4. #4
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,391
    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.

  5. #5
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    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????

  6. #6
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Defining it by a set rating doesn't work because of FIDE inflation.
    hence cam's suggested adjusted cut-off marks.

  7. #7
    CC FIDE Master Duff McKagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    711
    My choice on this poll was influenced by the article:

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

  8. #8
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    I'd say whoever gets invited to Linares etc. (insert appropriate qualifications here)
    Last edited by Aaron Guthrie; 07-11-2007 at 01:54 AM.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Garrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    the City
    Posts
    3,211
    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.

  10. #10
    CC Candidate Master Intuition's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    227
    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

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    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.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  12. #12
    CC Candidate Master Intuition's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    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???

  13. #13
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by Intuition
    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???

    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

  14. #14
    CC Candidate Master Intuition's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronD
    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

  15. #15
    Account Compromised
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronD
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Football codes - what is the future?
    By chesslover in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 651
    Last Post: 02-07-2006, 04:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •