PDA

View Full Version : A New Title



arosar
27-08-2005, 08:57 PM
The ACP and FIDE discussed the idea of a new title above that of the GM. What do you think of this idea?

http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/

AR

Frank Walker
27-08-2005, 09:06 PM
Ridiculous, what are going to call it. GWIBTGM (guy who is better than Grand Masters)

Garvinator
27-08-2005, 09:24 PM
I would add to this that maybe instead of creating new titles, maybe titles shouldnt be for life. Perhaps players should be required to meet the standard for a title say every 5 years ie a GM must make their norm standards within a 5 year period.

Frank Walker
27-08-2005, 09:33 PM
There are many Women competitiors which are only rated from 1500-1900 and are still considered as WFM WIM is it possible to lose the title after it is earned or is it kept for a lifetime

Bereaved
27-08-2005, 09:52 PM
Hi Frank,
the titles all last forever (FM,IM,GM,WFM,WIM,WGM)
I don't know about the candidate master title I read of elsewhere, or those from the problem solving commission,
Take care and God Bless, Macavity

There are also some statutes set in place from FIDE as how to deal with low rated GM's who are given the average rating of the field in Round Robins

eclectic
27-08-2005, 10:14 PM
maybe titles shouldnt be for life. .

nigel short is one who favours this however why put people through the stress of trying to achieve the (GM) title again and again? the title should be for life except that as a grandmaster you are allowed to play competitively using the title so long as you don't fall below 2300. once below that you are labelled egm emeritus grandmaster ... and retired for life from top level competitions.


eclectic

Garvinator
27-08-2005, 10:51 PM
nigel short is one who favours this however why put people through the stress of trying to achieve the (GM) title again and again?
Because the title should be a reflection of your current playing standard. Even though the discussion started here with talk of gm's and super gm titles, I certainly think that lifetime titles for the lesser titles is a joke. But i have talked about this before and so nothing I can say is new.

eclectic
27-08-2005, 11:06 PM
Because the title should be a reflection of your current playing standard. Even though the discussion started here with talk of gm's and super gm titles, I certainly think that lifetime titles for the lesser titles is a joke. But i have talked about this before and so nothing I can say is new.

could it perhaps be that ratings were themselves introduced for precisely that reason viz that titles were no longer reflecting the intended playing strength?

automatic GM title if at least 2550 for 4 consecutive rating periods?

eclectic

Garvinator
27-08-2005, 11:30 PM
could it perhaps be that ratings were themselves introduced for precisely that reason viz that titles were no longer reflecting the intended playing strength?

automatic GM title if at least 2550 for 4 consecutive rating periods?

eclectic
not sure why titles are actually necessary :uhoh:

Frank Walker
28-08-2005, 02:22 PM
not sure why titles are actually necessary :uhoh:

I agree

Rincewind
28-08-2005, 02:45 PM
I guess titles provide some sort of incentive. Just look at the interest that norms generate in tournaments and therefore they encourage organisers to run higher quality tournaments.

The argument is that the GM title has lost it's original intention with so many GMs running around (in certain contries at least). Some believe a new title should be introduced to capture the spirit of the original GM title. Personally, I think it is a good idea and would like to see the introduction of something like Super GM which a player has to be ranking in the top 20 players in the world or something to qualify for.

Frank Walker
28-08-2005, 03:07 PM
Maybe it can be called closet Grandmaster

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2005, 12:15 AM
There were originally only a few dozen GMs. Some inflation in the number is justified by improvements in chess technique but probably not as much inflation as there has been.

I'd suggest have a SuperGM title which a player would qualify for by maintaining a top 20 position in the rating list for a certain minimum number of ratings periods including a certain minimum number of games against other top 20 players and by winning appropriate SuperGM norms.

Ian Rout
29-08-2005, 09:24 AM
Ratings are a bit different from titles, in that you can get a good rating from a relatively small number of games, and performing well against undistinguished opposition. You can also maintain it by selecting your events and opponents carefully. A GM, on the other hand, has been tested against the best of the best and at least matched them. Well that's the theory.

It used to be that "grandmaster" was a title to identify the best players. These days we know who the best players are, its the level just below who need GM titles to distinguish them from IMs. It's a bit like a PhD, most people wouldn't know or care if Einstein had one but having one is essential to the working academic, and I don't know of any push to scrap PhDs.

Although it can be argued that the title system is outmoded and unnecessary (what other sports have it; some of the martial arts maybe?), and even pointless when there are so many GMs, it's part of the mystique of chess. In promoting the game its better to tell the media that Grandmaster Rogers is playing, Mr Rogers wouldn't be such a drawcard. Historically the terms "master" and "grandmaster" were used long before the structure was codified so it's a natural part of the game.

But Frank has pointed out a major problem, they've painted themselves into a corner as far getting a name for a new title. Maybe greatgrandmaster.

Rincewind
29-08-2005, 10:10 AM
But Frank has pointed out a major problem, they've painted themselves into a corner as far getting a name for a new title. Maybe greatgrandmaster.

I can't see that at all. Super GM is a term which has had currency for a number of years. If they want a new title, all that is required is to codify it.

eclectic
29-08-2005, 10:34 AM
2500 grandmaster (pawn division)
2600 grandmaster (knight division)
2700 grandmaster (bishop division)
2800 grandmaster (rook division)
2900 grandmaster (queen division)
3000 grandmaster (king division)

ie GM plus appropriate chess symbol before or after it

is this perhaps an idea?

eclectic

Spiny Norman
29-08-2005, 03:09 PM
Just push GM up another 100 points, and have NotSoGrandMaster to replace the current GM title ...

Vlad
03-09-2005, 11:56 AM
It used to be that "grandmaster" was a title to identify the best players. These days we know who the best players are, its the level just below who need GM titles to distinguish them from IMs. It's a bit like a PhD, most people wouldn't know or care if Einstein had one but having one is essential to the working academic, and I don't know of any push to scrap PhDs.


I do not agree that it is essential, I would replace this word by helpful. The best economist in Australia has never studied in any PhD program, he is just incredibly gifted. However, I think he could do better if he studied.

Other countries, like Russia and Germany, have a title above PhD. It is something like super PhD. One should get an international recognition to receive this title. I think it makes sense. Similarly to GM and IM titles, PhD title is not worth as much as say 30 years ago.

Even in Australia there is some title like that. At least when I was given my degree some very old fellow was given some kind of honored PhD, while he had a PhD already. That was for some kind of important contribution into Singapore Airlines success. Not exactly academic contribution though.:))

Vlad
03-09-2005, 02:54 PM
Regarding the main issue though, if it was my decision I would abolish all titles because in my opinion they are not useful at all. People get recognition through their ratings. Who cares whether a particular person is GM or IM? The only important thing is how strong this person is. If you pick up two people rated about 2400, one is IM while the other one is not, what it would suggest to you? Well I would just think that the one with the title has been around longer than the other one or had a better luck in some sense. Would you expect the one with the title to beat the other one more often? I do not think so.

Ian has argued that ratings can be manipulated but so as titles. I think our region is particularly famous for this. Not only we have the weakest zonal in the whole world we are also close to Asian countries where norms can be manipulated.

How many Australian and New Zealand FMs have ratings below 2300? How many Australian and New Zealand IMs have ratings below 2400? How many Australian grandmasters have ratings below 2500? I think the answer to each of these questions is at least 50%. What about other countries? It is quite likely that nowhere else chess has a similar situation.

Think about a situation when somebody young and very talented with a rating about 2500 but without a title comes to play in some event in Australia. In addition some Australian IM with a rating of about 2300 comes to play. The first is clearly much stronger than the second. The first has to pay the fee while the second does not. Does it make any sense?

I think the chess association should correct the rule to say that everybody with FIDE above 2400 will not have to pay the fee. It would make much more sense to me. People will have incentives to increase their ratings which means improve and this is what chess associations should care about.

Rincewind
03-09-2005, 04:19 PM
Regarding the main issue though, if it was my decision I would abolish all titles because in my opinion they are not useful at all. People get recognition through their ratings. Who cares whether a particular person is GM or IM? The only important thing is how strong this person is. If you pick up two people rated about 2400, one is IM while the other one is not, what it would suggest to you? Well I would just think that the one with the title has been around longer than the other one or had a better luck in some sense. Would you expect the one with the title to beat the other one more often? I do not think so.

Ian has argued that ratings can be manipulated but so as titles. I think our region is particularly famous for this. Not only we have the weakest zonal in the whole world we are also close to Asian countries where norms can be manipulated.

How many Australian and New Zealand FMs have ratings below 2300? How many Australian and New Zealand IMs have ratings below 2400? How many Australian grandmasters have ratings below 2500? I think the answer to each of these questions is at least 50%. What about other countries? It is quite likely that nowhere else chess has a similar situation.

Think about a situation when somebody young and very talented with a rating about 2500 but without a title comes to play in some event in Australia. In addition some Australian IM with a rating of about 2300 comes to play. The first is clearly much stronger than the second. The first has to pay the fee while the second does not. Does it make any sense?

I think the chess association should correct the rule to say that everybody with FIDE above 2400 will not have to pay the fee. It would make much more sense to me. People will have incentives to increase their ratings which means improve and this is what chess associations should care about.

It would seem your whole argument is based on the unstated premise that the purpose of the title system is to differentiate players into categories of current strength. This is obviously a false premise and so all your points collapse like a house of cards and doesn't warrant further discussion.

The rating is the measure of current strength and it serves that purpose infinitely better than the title. However the title serves other purposes. It is recognition for life of a attaining a particular level of proficency in chess. As a reward which persist for the life of the player it provide an incentive for players to invest time and money in chess to reach them. This in turn encourages organisers to hold stong events where norms are on offer.

Yes, lamentably any system can be abused and rorted. However the fact that people bother to rort the system is evidence as to the intrinsic value the titles have. Stamp out the rorting but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

PHAT
03-09-2005, 06:02 PM
SuperGM. What a colourless and unimaginative name.

We should not be happy with slapping on a super prefix.

FIDE M
International M
Grand M
X? M

Just off the top of my head I can think of these few suggestions. :wink:

I am pissing myself :lol:

admirable, ambitious, august, dignified, dynamite, elevated, eminent, exalted, excellent, fab, fine, first-class, first-rate, glorious, grandiose, great, haughty, illustrious, imposing, large, lofty, lordly, luxurious, magnificent, majestic, marvelous, monumental, nifty :lol:, noble, opulent, ostentatious, outstanding, palatial, pompous, pretentious, princely, regal, rich, smashing :lol:, something else, splendid, stately, striking, sublime, sumptuous, super, superb, terrific, unreal, wonderful, chief, dignified, elevated, exalted, grave, head, highest, leading, lofty, main, majestic, mighty, noble, preeminent, principal, regal, supreme, transcendent, champion, master, master hand, past master :lol:, specialist, virtuoso, wizard, affected, ambitious, august, bombastic, cosmic, egotistic, extravagant, flamboyant, fustian, grand, high-flown, highfalutin, imposing, impressive, lofty, lordly, magnificent, majestic, monumental, noble, ostentatious, overwhelming, pompous, pretentious, princely, purple, royal, showy, splashy, stately, unfathomable, vast, aesthetic, creative, cultivated, cultured, decorative, dramatic, elegant, exquisite, fine, graceful, grand, harmonious, ideal, imaginative, musical, ornamental, pictorial, picturesque, pleasing, poetic, refined, rhythmical, satisfying, sensitive, stimulating, stylish, sublime, tasteful, baronial, brilliant, eminent, exalted, glorious, grand, grandiose, high-minded, high-ranking, highfalutin', honorable, imposing, impressive, kingly, lofty, lordly, magnificent, majestic, monumental, noble, pompous, princely, regal, resplendent, stately, superb, venerable, alarming, astonishing, awe-inspiring, awful, beautiful, breathtaking, daunting, dreadful, exalted, far out, fearful, fearsome, formidable, frantic, frightening, grand, hairy :lol:, horrible, horrifying, imposing, impressive, intimidating, magnificent, majestic, mind-blowing, moving, nervous, overwhelming, shocking, striking, stunning, stupefying, terrible, terrifying, wonderful, wondrous, zero cool, admirable, alluring, angelic, appealing, beauteous, bewitching, charming, classy, comely, cute, dazzling, delicate, delightful, divine, elegant, enticing, excellent, exquisite, fair, fascinating, fine, foxy, good-looking, gorgeous, graceful, grand, handsome, ideal, lovely, magnificent, marvelous, nice, pleasing, pretty, pulchritudinous :eek:, radiant, ravishing, refined, resplendent, shapely, sightly, splendid, statuesque, stunning, sublime, superb, symmetrical, taking, well-formed, wonderful. :lol:

Rincewind
06-09-2005, 11:06 PM
Other countries, like Russia and Germany, have a title above PhD. It is something like super PhD. One should get an international recognition to receive this title. I think it makes sense. Similarly to GM and IM titles, PhD title is not worth as much as say 30 years ago.

Even in Australia there is some title like that. At least when I was given my degree some very old fellow was given some kind of honored PhD, while he had a PhD already. That was for some kind of important contribution into Singapore Airlines success. Not exactly academic contribution though.:))

There are such a things as Higher Doctorial Degrees, even in Australia. Examples are Doctor of Laws (LLD), Doctor of Letters (DLitt) and Doctor of Science (DSc). Not sure if these are to what you were referring.

arosar
06-09-2005, 11:18 PM
There is also the DBA - Doctor of Business Administration. But these are 'professional doctorates' and are held in lesser regard to the PhD.

AR

PHAT
06-09-2005, 11:45 PM
There is also the DBA - Doctor of Business Administration. But these are 'professional doctorates' and are held in lesser regard to the PhD.

AR

That is odd. In scientific circles, a DSc is regarded as "better" than a PhD.

Rincewind
07-09-2005, 12:27 AM
That is odd. In scientific circles, a DSc is regarded as "better" than a PhD.

I believe the same is generally true in mathematics.

Bereaved
07-09-2005, 12:50 AM
Dear Matt, post #21 is very special, a true gem, but I feel you left a suggestion off by accident: Sweeney master!!!!! :owned: :owned:

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Ian Rout
07-09-2005, 09:09 AM
How many Australian and New Zealand FMs have ratings below 2300? How many Australian and New Zealand IMs have ratings below 2400? How many Australian grandmasters have ratings below 2500? I think the answer to each of these questions is at least 50%. What about other countries? It is quite likely that nowhere else chess has a similar situation.
I don't know the answers to these but they can derived from the rating list published on fide.com. It should be said that while Australia has players who have achieved titles while below the nominal rating level that this cuts both ways. An Australian player who achieves the requisite level of play may wait some time for norm events while for European players they are no harder to book into than sitting a driving test.

Intellectually I think its true that the title system has many shortcomings and is not entirely necessary, so I can't argue against those propositions, but it's part of the aura of chess. You could equally argue that martial arts should be contested in shorts and singlets, or the haka should be performed in English.

Rincewind
07-09-2005, 09:13 AM
There is also the DBA - Doctor of Business Administration. But these are 'professional doctorates' and are held in lesser regard to the PhD.

I think any degree of the form "xBA" is dodgy. I won't be draw to comment on the case where the x is absent. ;)

pax
07-09-2005, 02:48 PM
That is odd. In scientific circles, a DSc is regarded as "better" than a PhD.

It's also usually awarded on an honourary basis - as a reward for X years of distinguished research, and Y hundred distinguished journal publications. It's not a degree you enrol in, study for X years and write a thesis at the end.

pax
07-09-2005, 03:01 PM
I don't know the answers to these but they can derived from the rating list published on fide.com. It should be said that while Australia has players who have achieved titles while below the nominal rating level that this cuts both ways. An Australian player who achieves the requisite level of play may wait some time for norm events while for European players they are no harder to book into than sitting a driving test.


While it is true that norm events are harder to find for Australasian players, it doesn't seem to be holding anyone back at the moment.

There are no Australian (or New Zealand) players who are above IM or GM standard who are only missing the title for lack of norms. One could argue that George Xie and Igor Bjelobrk are IM standard, but both are short of the required rating and so would not get the title even if they had the norms. Zhao has at times appeared to be GM strength, but he too lacks the required rating for the title.

It would, perhaps be more accurate to say that there is a lack of local top level events to enable strong players to improve their chess to IM and GM standard.

pballard
07-09-2005, 05:40 PM
While it is true that norm events are harder to find for Australasian players, it doesn't seem to be holding anyone back at the moment.

There are no Australian (or New Zealand) players who are above IM or GM standard who are only missing the title for lack of norms. One could argue that George Xie and Igor Bjelobrk are IM standard, but both are short of the required rating and so would not get the title even if they had the norms.

Isn't the nominal rating 2400 for an IM? Bjelobrk and Trevor Tao are both over 2400, and untitled.

pax
07-09-2005, 06:19 PM
Isn't the nominal rating 2400 for an IM? Bjelobrk and Trevor Tao are both over 2400, and untitled.

Igor isn't over 2400 FIDE (2370). Trevor Tao is one I missed, but he has not been active since his rating went over 2400 (April 2004).

Edit: Trevor did previously have a rating over 2400 in 95 and 96. This was due to an outstanding Australian Championship (I think) which gave him an initial rating of (I think) 2420. So I'll give you that - he is IM standard without the title due to lack of norms. However his inactivity makes it pretty clear that he hasn't been seeking the title (there were many IM norm events he could have played but didn't) - bigger fish to fry I guess.

Frank Walker
07-09-2005, 07:08 PM
I beleive Igors rating is 2399

Rhubarb
07-09-2005, 08:18 PM
I beleive Igors rating is 2399Jesus, I thought it was the ghost of antichrist (who walks) until I realised he'd been unbanned. How many spelling and punctuation errors can you cram into six words, and still completely miss the point?

eclectic
07-09-2005, 08:30 PM
Jesus, I thought it was the ghost of antichrist (who walks) until I realised he'd been unbanned. How many spelling and punctuation errors can you cram into six words, and still completely miss the point?

hi kegless,

it's five words;

the last item is a number

;)

eclectic

Thunderspirit
07-09-2005, 08:37 PM
Instead of inventing a new title, FIDE should make the title's they already have, harder to achieve, or stop the weakening of these titles. Sadly the FM title has been given a lot of crap, but 20 years ago the FM title was an achievement.

When players like Canfell, Reilly, Flatow, Jordan and Despaquale (and others...) got their titles it was a lot harder than some dishes out today....

Garvinator
07-09-2005, 08:51 PM
Overall in the world, is the FM title 'that weak' or is it because some players can get the FM from our small sub zonal?

Thunderspirit
07-09-2005, 08:58 PM
Gillian I thought you were dead! With the inflation of the FIDE ratings, it is easier than before, and the old requirement was that you had to get to 2300, keep it there for 30 games over 9 mths. Now you get 2300, and pay your money...

Rhubarb
07-09-2005, 08:58 PM
hi kegless,

it's five words;

the last item is a number

;)

eclectic
Dear eclectic,

Please quote me one single authority on the English language that expressly states that numbers in sentences in print are not to be considered words. ;)

While you're at it, can you you explain to me why it is that one can wilfully ignore such anachronisms as full stops and capital letters, in the 'modern' (splutter!) style, and yet apparently spend an inordinate amount of time lovingly rendering one's own handle in over-sized italicised, emboldened Medium Turquoise... :sick:

eclectic
07-09-2005, 09:20 PM
Dear eclectic,

Please quote me one single authority on the English language that expressly states that numbers in sentences in print are not to be considered words. ;)

While you're at it, can you you explain to me why it is that one can wilfully ignore such anachronisms as full stops and capital letters, in the 'modern' (splutter!) style, and yet apparently spend an inordinate amount of time lovingly rendering one's own handle in over-sized italicised, emboldened Medium Turquoise... :sick:

dear kegless,

re word or number .... point taken. (wink noted)

re signature ... yes i do take a perverse amount of time with my signature ... as though i were cast back in time as one of the illuminators of the book of kells

perhaps i should code a program which colors my signature according to the ecclesastical colours worn by priests in the r c church on the day of posting ... red for martyrs ... violet for solemnities ... etc etc

eclectic

Rhubarb
07-09-2005, 09:39 PM
perhaps i should code a program which colors my signature according to the ecclesastical colours worn by priests in the r c church on the day of posting ... red for martyrs ... violet for solemnities ... etc etc

eclectic
That's the church: one long animated gif. :P

pax
07-09-2005, 09:54 PM
I beleive Igors rating is 2399

You believe wrong.