PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Brian_Jones
04-02-2006, 04:20 PM
Regarding the 50% titled opponent rule they count.

This is why, when Australia was offered all those "undeserved" zonal titles some years ago in the Gold Coast, we should have kept quiet and just grabbed as many tiles as possible.

The more active titled players the better - it helps future title aspirants and has a snowball effect that has not yet been seen in Australia or New Zealand!

peter_parr
07-02-2006, 12:01 PM
This is why, when Australia was offered all those "undeserved" zonal titles some years ago in the Gold Coast, we should have kept quiet and just grabbed as many tiles as possible.

The more active titled players the better - it helps future title aspirants and has a snowball effect that has not yet been seen in Australia or New Zealand!


23 of the 26 Australians rated above 1400 who competed in the Gold Coast were internationally titled just after the events in 1999.

Low rated club players simply drew with each other scoring 50% for the FIDE Master title.

Brian Jones has rightly described himself as one of these undeserved title holders and suggests that we should create more and more sub standard title holders – the more the better. This suggestion is disgraceful. Australia like all FIDE countries must ensure that FIDE titles are awarded only to players who fully deserve to hold them.

FIDE zonals are for leading players in each nation to compete for the world championship. A 50% score for an FM title or 67% score for an IM title was designed for the top invited players. When our sub standard sub zonal was held beginners were allowed to play in the world championship in Australia thus creating all these underserved (Brian Jones words) title holders.

Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan (USA) was understandably furious and rightly suggested Australia should return these titles to FIDE.

In general terms International Master requires 3 norms (rating performance 2450+ in each one) with many other provisions and a 2400 rating.

The idea that an Australian can visit a Pacific Island score 5 out of 5 against locals (all beginners) and 1 out of 4 against the rest and receive free entry to all tournaments for life in Australia is utterly absurd – but it has happened.

Australia now has a number of FIDE Masters who are not rated high enough to compete in our championship and are well below the minimum of 2300 – the normal FM requirement.

I repeat 23 of the 26 Australians rated above 1400 (not a misprint -900 rating points below the minimum FIDE level) were internationally titled after the 1999 Zonal and Brian Jones is delighted.

Nick Speck has just completed his third and final IM norm in Gibraltar against GM’s, IM’s etc. and performed above 2450 and fulfilled all FIDE conditions. When he finally receives his IM certificate he can say with pride that his title was fully deserved.

All leading Australian players who fought hard and deservedly for their titles (GM, IM, FM) are very unhappy that so many players drew their way to mastery against very weak club players.

Leonid Sandler
07-02-2006, 01:42 PM
Peter is very right.Zonal tournaments should not be used for giving away titles .Nick Speck and George Xie are to be congratulated for their efforts to get titles good old fashioned ways.

Garvinator
07-02-2006, 01:49 PM
how is this discussion any different to the thrust of my arguments about the zonal just held in NZ?

pax
07-02-2006, 02:36 PM
Australia now has a number of FIDE Masters who are not rated high enough to compete in our championship and are well below the minimum of 2300 – the normal FM requirement.

I'll just point out that this is not a phenomenon unique to Australia. More than 50% of FMs worldwide are rated below 2300, and more than 55% of IMs are below 2400.

Brian_Jones
07-02-2006, 02:55 PM
Peter is very right.Zonal tournaments should not be used for giving away titles .Nick Speck and George Xie are to be congratulated for their efforts to get titles good old fashioned ways.

Just remind me how you got your title Leonid?

Also, active FIDE Arbiters such as Stewart Reuben have been fixing swiss pairings for decades in order to gain title norm opportunities for players.

As pax says, most players cannot hold the supposed rating level anyway. I know a few strong 2300+ FMs that deserve the IM title more than some 2300+ IMs but have unsuccessful despite many years of trying. The system is hardly fair and balanced throughout the world.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-02-2006, 03:03 PM
Just remind me how you got your title Leonid?

Also, active FIDE Arbiters such as Stewart Reuben have been fixing swiss pairings for decades in order to gain title norm opportunities for players.

As pax says, most players cannot hold the supposed rating level anyway. I know a few strong 2300+ FMs that deserve the IM title more than some 2300+ IMs but have unsuccessful despite many years of trying. The system is hardly fair and balanced throughout the world.

I think he got it old fashioned way (3 norms plus rating>2400), he can give more details if he wants so.

As for FM, I don't think there are many "strong FM" deserving IM title, and those that do must be on the way to get it.
The definition "strong 2300+ FM" is quite strange as FM is supposed to be 2300+. The adjective "strong" can only be applied to FM if his rating is over 2400.

peter_parr
08-02-2006, 01:36 PM
As pax says, most players cannot hold the supposed rating level anyway.

If a player reaches 2300 they become FIDE master.
If later they lose rating points that is OK.

It is not OK for low rated club players to all draw with each all score 50% and 23 out of 26 (rated above 1400) to again international titles when they are nowhere near 2300.

Brian please do the right thing and return your FM title to FIDE (as suggested by GM Seirawan). If you gain 90 rating points and reach 2200 in the 2006 City of Sydney in the Syndey CBD you may then apply for the Candidate Master Title (CFM).

Perhaps we can meet at the City of Sydney next week and have a cup of coffee and a chat at the book stall.

I find it difficult to understand your viewpoint that low rated club players should have FIDE master titles – it makes no sense to me.

Vlad
08-02-2006, 01:49 PM
If you reach 2300 and do not pay the money. Then you say drop back to 2200+. Can you claim the title then?

firegoat7
08-02-2006, 01:50 PM
Nick Speck has just completed his third and final IM norm in Gibraltar against GM’s, IM’s etc. and performed above 2450 and fulfilled all FIDE conditions. When he finally receives his IM certificate he can say with pride that his title was fully deserved.



Haha, No doubt he will give his mate Chapman a lot of grief about who is the real IM ;) What does he call them ZIMs...haha.

cheers Fg7

arosar
08-02-2006, 02:09 PM
Brian please do the right thing and return your FM title to FIDE (as suggested by GM Seirawan). If you gain 90 rating points and reach 2200 in the 2006 City of Sydney in the Syndey CBD you may then apply for the Candidate Master Title (CFM).

What? There is a FIDE CFM?

Now I reckon we should revive our own national titles. We have them, don't we? Where's the guidelines for that, btw? I noticed that the kiwis use their nationals and so do Pinoys.


Perhaps we can meet at the City of Sydney next week and have a cup of coffee and a chat at the book stall.

I will be there too. I'll have my camera with me. And I can't believe that the COS is next week already.

AR

Brian_Jones
08-02-2006, 02:48 PM
I find it difficult to understand your viewpoint that low rated club players should have FIDE master titles – it makes no sense to me.

I am very happy for Australian players to win FIDE titles. In fact I want more aussies to play chess and win titles. If we had 100,000 players and 100 FIDE Grandmasters then I would be over the moon.

But maybe you are too old, inactive and set in your ways to understand that chess is for everybody and not just for you and your elitist mates!

Leonid Sandler
08-02-2006, 03:48 PM
Hello Brian,
About my international master title.I have scored 3 im norms.In 1994 I have won Australian masters Championship with result of 9,5 points from 11 games,in the same year I have scored 6,5 points out of 11 games in Gunadarma University international tournament in Indonesia and if my memory serves me right it was category 6 or 7 tournament.In 1996 I have scored my last norm in Chess Olympiad in Erevan with 7 points from 10 games with performance rating of 2459 in Category 4 tournament.

Davidflude
08-02-2006, 03:54 PM
Hello Brian,
About my international master title.I have scored 3 im norms.In 1994 I have won Australian masters Championship with result of 9,5 points from 11 games,in the same year I have scored 6,5 points out of 11 games in Gunadarma University international tournament in Indonesia and if my memory serves me right it was category 6 or 7 tournament.In 1996 I have scored my last norm in Chess Olympiad in Erevan with 7 points from 10 games with performance rating of 2459 in Category 4 tournament.

This is a paradigm of how an IM title should be gained. Leonid scored very good results in several tough tournaments. As far as I am concerned Leonid is a dinki-di IM.

arosar
08-02-2006, 04:09 PM
Brian is a very well informed fellow. He would not ask such a question if he knew the answer was so simple. I think, we are very much intrigued by his suggestion - which is clear enough.

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
08-02-2006, 04:12 PM
I am very happy for Australian players to win FIDE titles. In fact I want more aussies to play chess and win titles. If we had 100,000 players and 100 FIDE Grandmasters then I would be over the moon.

But maybe you are too old, inactive and set in your ways to understand that chess is for everybody and not just for you and your elitist mates!

I don't mind having 100 grandmasters - as long as they have gm strength and earned their titles

Vlad
08-02-2006, 04:30 PM
It could be a good idea to give a "prize" each year to the weakest FM and IM.Whom would people nominate for the 2005 award?:)

Garvinator
08-02-2006, 04:38 PM
It could be a good idea to give a "prize" each year to the weakest FM and IM.Whom would people nominate for the 2005 award?:)
I take it this would be an Australian only award ie the winners must have AUS next to their federation status?:cool:

Garvinator
08-02-2006, 04:39 PM
I am very happy for Australian players to win FIDE titles. In fact I want more aussies to play chess and win titles. If we had 100,000 players and 100 FIDE Grandmasters then I would be over the moon.

But maybe you are too old, inactive and set in your ways to understand that chess is for everybody and not just for you and your elitist mates!
Shouldnt we be working on getting players up to the 2300 rating required for a genuine fm title, rather than devaluing the fm title? This goes for the other titles as well that I have bitched and moaned about as well.

Garvinator
08-02-2006, 04:40 PM
Hello Brian,
About my international master title.I have scored 3 im norms.In 1994 I have won Australian masters Championship with result of 9,5 points from 11 games,in the same year I have scored 6,5 points out of 11 games in Gunadarma University international tournament in Indonesia and if my memory serves me right it was category 6 or 7 tournament.In 1996 I have scored my last norm in Chess Olympiad in Erevan with 7 points from 10 games with performance rating of 2459 in Category 4 tournament.
Can you please inform everyone how many IM norms you have recorded since you received your IM title? Also can you please inform everyone when you recorded these 'extra' norms?

Vlad
08-02-2006, 04:43 PM
I take it this would be an Australian only award ie the winners must have AUS next to their federation status?:cool:

Well, you probably can include people like myself (people who live in Australia but for some administrative reasons are not considered to be Australian), but as you know I do not have any titles.:)

Garvinator
08-02-2006, 04:50 PM
Well, you probably can include people like myself (people who live in Australia but for some administrative reasons are not considered to be Australian), but as you know I do not have any titles.:)
The administrative reason is that you havent informed fide in writing that you want to change your federation status to Australia. It is probably in your best interest to stay with RUS next to your name as in Australia we need players from other federations for fide title tournaments;)

pax
08-02-2006, 05:22 PM
Can you please inform everyone how many IM norms you have recorded since you received your IM title? Also can you please inform everyone when you recorded these 'extra' norms?

What's that got to do with anything? Players don't need IM norms once they have recieved the title!

Spiny Norman
08-02-2006, 05:27 PM
Can you please inform everyone how many IM norms you have recorded since you received your IM title? Also can you please inform everyone when you recorded these 'extra' norms?
You're not having a go at Leonid are you Garvin? Can't have that now ... he's a member at Croydon ... :hand:

WhiteElephant
08-02-2006, 05:47 PM
Can you please inform everyone how many IM norms you have recorded since you received your IM title? Also can you please inform everyone when you recorded these 'extra' norms?

Wow, that is some spiteful comment. Do you have some agenda against Leonid?

Vlad
08-02-2006, 06:04 PM
The administrative reason is that you havent informed fide in writing that you want to change your federation status to Australia. It is probably in your best interest to stay with RUS next to your name as in Australia we need players from other federations for fide title tournaments;)

Yep, this is pretty much what Garry told me in Brisbain. Because of that I miss out on an opportunity to get easy titles in the Zonals but have good chances to be invited to events with title norms.:)

Rhubarb
08-02-2006, 06:22 PM
Wow, that is some spiteful comment. Do you have some agenda against Leonid?Yeah! C'mon gggg, surely you've got something on Sandler! Pax, Frosty and WE seem to be convinced that Sandler's title is legitimate!

Vlad
08-02-2006, 07:01 PM
Yeah! C'mon gggg, surely you've got something on Sandler! Pax, Frosty and WE seem to be convinced that Sandler's title is legitimate!

You guys are very cheeky.. One should think twice before putting a finger in ur mouse.:)

Greg, are u playing city of sydney or st george champ?

Rhubarb
08-02-2006, 07:06 PM
You guys are very cheeky.. One should think twice before putting a finger in ur mouse.:)Why? Do you know something about defamation law that I don't?


Greg, are u playing city of sydney or st george champ?Maybe the former, but I have to say I have been very, very depressed about chess since losing to Chandler in Brisbane.

Spiny Norman
08-02-2006, 07:16 PM
... I have to say I have been very, very depressed about chess since losing to Chandler in Brisbane.
You were robbed ... you had been playing so well ... Chandler must've gone out to buy a lottery ticket straight afterwards.

arosar
08-02-2006, 07:16 PM
Maybe the former, but I have to say I have been very, very depressed about chess since losing to Chandler in Brisbane.

We will fix this. I will organise something. How are you fix for this Friday? I was with our Lebo mate at the Macquarie Hotel and he threatened to do a bit of karaoke - a sing along with a tranny to boot!

I'll get you in shape before the tournament. Don't worry.

AR

Rhubarb
08-02-2006, 07:19 PM
Hey, thanks Frosty and Arosar! :)

Edit: Errr, I hope that doesn't mean you'll fix me up with a tranny, AR.:eek:

Spiny Norman
08-02-2006, 07:26 PM
Edit: Errr, I hope that doesn't mean you'll fix me up with a tranny, AR.:eek:
Heavens to Murgatroyd ... exit ... stage left! ;)

Vlad
08-02-2006, 07:36 PM
Why? Do you know something about defamation law that I don't?


No, I don't.:)

But even if there was something "unusual", I would still regard Leonid's title much higher than ZIM.

arosar
08-02-2006, 07:38 PM
Edit: Errr, I hope that doesn't mean you'll fix me up with a tranny, AR.:eek:

Nope, but I tell you what, s/he didn't mind a bit of a squeeze. Not shy I tell you. The Lebo was blushing!

AR

Rhubarb
08-02-2006, 07:53 PM
No, I don't.:)

But even if there was something "unusual", I would still regard Leonid's title much higher than ZIM.Yes, I would definitely agree with this.

Lucena
08-02-2006, 08:42 PM
It could be a good idea to give a "prize" each year to the weakest FM and IM.Whom would people nominate for the 2005 award?:)

What, sort of like the Golden Raspberry awards? :D

PHAT
08-02-2006, 09:51 PM
Hello Brian,
About my international master title.I have scored 3 im norms.In 1994 I have won Australian masters Championship with result of 9,5 points from 11 games,in the same year I have scored 6,5 points out of 11 games in Gunadarma University international tournament in Indonesia and if my memory serves me right it was category 6 or 7 tournament.In 1996 I have scored my last norm in Chess Olympiad in Erevan with 7 points from 10 games with performance rating of 2459 in Category 4 tournament.

Didn't you beat a some GM 9.5/10 games or something. Help us remember.

themovingman
09-02-2006, 12:09 AM
23 of the 26 Australians rated above 1400 who competed in the Gold Coast were internationally titled just after the events in 1999.

Low rated club players simply drew with each other scoring 50% for the FIDE Master title.



Can anyone provide a link or guesswork/pointer where the results/crosstable of the above is at ?

thanks

ps and while you are at it the previous Olympiad - ta

Ian Rout
09-02-2006, 08:10 AM
ps and while you are at it the previous Olympiad - ta

http://www.olimpbase.org/

has statistics of all Olympiads.

pax
09-02-2006, 10:21 AM
And you can get crosstables of the last few Zonals from the twic newsletters (http://www.chesscenter.com.twic/twic.html) if you are prepared to do a bit of digging (google helps).

eclectic
09-02-2006, 11:28 AM
Oceanic zt Gold Coast 1999

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Feldman,Vladimir 2330 +1 -½ +1 -½ -1 +½ -½ +1 -1 7.0/9
23 3 12 2 9 5 4 6 7
2 Smerdon,David 2173 +½ -1 +1 +½ -0 +1 -½ -½ +1 6.0/9
13 6 21 1 5 11 7 3 10
3 Berezina,Irina 2230 -1 +½ -½ +0 -½ +1 -1 +½ +1 6.0/9
4 1 10 5 14 17 12 2 9
4 Dive,Russell John 2440 +0 -1 +1 -½ +1 -½ +½ -½ +1 6.0/9
3 23 19 13 16 9 1 14 5
5 Johansen,Darryl K 2490 +1 -½ +½ -1 +1 -½ +1 +0 -0 5.5/9
16 22 9 3 2 1 10 7 4
6 Depasquale,Chris 2302 -½ +0 -1 +½ -½ +1 +1 -0 +1 5.5/9
20 2 11 14 15 8 9 1 21
7 Wohl,Aleksandar H 2440 -½ +1 -1 +0 -½ +1 +½ -1 +0 5.5/9
15 18 22 9 13 12 2 5 1
8 Kulashko,Aleksei 2396 +1 -0 +½ -0 +1 -0 +1 -1 +1 5.5/9
19 9 16 12 20 6 25 18 14
9 Reilly,Tim 2258 +1 +1 -½ -1 +0 +½ -0 +1 -0 5.0/9
26 8 5 7 1 4 6 13 3
10 Laird,Craig 2300 +1 -½ +½ -0 +1 +1 -0 -1 -0 5.0/9
24 12 3 21 18 13 5 16 2
11 Saw,Geoffrey 2205 +½ -½ +0 -1 +1 -0 +½ -1 +½ 5.0/9
21 13 6 23 17 2 16 20 15
12 Zhao,Zong Yuan -1 +½ -0 +1 +1 -0 +0 -½ -½ 4.5/9
14 10 1 8 21 7 3 15 17
13 Wallace,John Paul 2360 -½ +½ -1 +½ +½ -0 +1 -0 +½ 4.5/9
2 11 18 4 7 10 21 9 19
14 Levi,Eddy 2245 +0 -1 +½ -½ +½ -½ +1 +½ -0 4.5/9
12 24 17 6 3 21 19 4 8
15 Weeks,Manuel William 2245 +½ -0 +1 -½ +½ -½ +½ +½ -½ 4.5/9
7 21 20 17 6 16 18 12 11
16 Reeves,Tristan 2245 -0 +1 -½ +1 -0 +½ -½ +0 -1 4.5/9
5 25 8 22 4 15 11 10 24
17 Tindall,Brett 2250 -0 +1 -½ +½ -0 -0 +1 -1 +½ 4.5/9
18 20 14 15 11 3 26 23 12
18 Szuveges,Narelle +1 -0 +0 -1 -0 +1 -½ +0 -1 4.5/9
17 7 13 19 10 24 15 8 25
19 Dwyer,Daniel 2186 -0 +1 -0 +0 -1 +1 -0 +1 -½ 4.5/9
8 26 4 18 22 23 14 25 13
20 Stawski,Nikolai 2045 +½ -0 -0 +1 -0 -1 +1 +0 -1 4.5/9
6 17 15 24 8 25 22 11 26
21 Solomon,Stephen J 2435 -½ +1 -0 +1 -0 +½ -0 +1 -0 4.0/9
11 15 2 10 12 14 13 26 6
22 Allen,Andrew 2261 -1 +½ +0 -0 +0 -1 -0 +½ +1 4.0/9
25 5 7 16 19 26 20 24 23
23 Ilic,Ilija 2115 -0 +0 -1 +0 +1 -0 -1 +0 -0 3.0/9
1 4 25 11 26 19 24 17 22
24 Corker,Kerry -0 +0 -½ -0 +1 -0 +0 -½ +0 2.0/9
10 14 26 20 25 18 23 22 16
25 Franks,Clifton +0 -0 +0 -1 -0 +0 -0 -0 +0 1.0/9
22 16 23 26 24 20 8 19 18
26 Parmeshwar,Rajnesh -0 -0 +½ +0 -0 +0 -0 -0 +0 0.5/9
9 19 24 25 23 22 17 21 20

peter_parr
09-02-2006, 11:51 AM
I am very happy for Australian players to win FIDE titles. In fact I want more aussies to play chess and win titles. If we had 100,000 players and 100 FIDE Grandmasters then I would be over the moon.

But maybe you are too old, inactive and set in your ways to understand that chess is for everybody and not just for you and your elitist mates!

Brian you claim I’m too old yet your age is only six months different to mine.

Of course I understand chess is for everyone – 6 days a week for a third of a century I promote chess to customers in my chess shop in the Sydney CBD.

My mates in chess range from absolute beginners to World Champions Euwe (who was in my shop) to modern times.

Of course I would like Australia to have 100 Fide grandmasters (and 100,000 players) – we share the same goals.

A GM title requires 3 GM norms (over 2600 results etc)
an IM title requires 3 IM norms (over 2450 results etc)
an FM title requires 2300 rating.

A Candidate Master requires 2200 rating.

These titles would have no meaning if you just give them away to low rated club players.

There are 19,030 players rated above you on the current FIDE active players list who have no FIDE title yet you call yourself and other club players FIDE masters after scoring 50% against a field containing numerous low rated club players.

Your idea of giving away FIDE titles to club players is utterly absurd.

Maybe FIDE could issue certificates for players rated between 2100 and 2200 and call it expert (you would than have an expert certificate) and..

2000-2100 a FIDE category 1 player
1900-2000 a FIDE category 2 player etc, etc,

So every club player would have a certificate – everyone would be happy.

Think about it Brian – back to basics – what is the meaning of the word “Master”.

FIDE master titles do not come out of cornflakes packets.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2006, 12:05 PM
FIDE master titles do not come out of cornflakes packets.Unless of course Kellogs could be persuaded to sponsor the next zonal. ;)

pax
09-02-2006, 12:09 PM
23 of the 26 Australians rated above 1400 who competed in the Gold Coast were internationally titled just after the events in 1999.

Low rated club players simply drew with each other scoring 50% for the FIDE Master title.


Regarding the 1999 event, this seems to be somewhat of an exaggeration. eclectic has now posted the crosstable: which of these players do you regard as 'low-rated club players'. Maybe five of the 26 players were rated below 2000 ACF, of these two qualified for the FM title (one didn't apply for the title).



I repeat 23 of the 26 Australians rated above 1400 (not a misprint -900 rating points below the minimum FIDE level) were internationally titled after the 1999 Zonal and Brian Jones is delighted.

This is a pretty misleading statement. You make it seem like there were a lot of players around this 1400 mark. Of the 26 players, one was unrated (the Fijian), and I can only see one other who might possibly have been rated below 1400 (I don't have old ACF lists, so don't know for sure).

I can say for certain that none of the 26 players has an ACF rating today under 1700.

Don't get me wrong, I think it was a bad move for Oceania to use this format in 1999. The restriction in recent Zonals to a maximum of one IM title and two FM titles have improved matters considerably. But I don't think it helps the argument to exaggerate the facts.

Garvinator
09-02-2006, 01:07 PM
Unless of course Kellogs could be persuaded to sponsor the next zonal. ;)
Now there is an idea:clap:

Alan Shore
09-02-2006, 02:09 PM
Unless of course Kellogs could be persuaded to sponsor the next zonal. ;)

Haha, awesome!

Rhubarb
10-02-2006, 01:12 AM
Didn't you beat a some GM 9.5/10 games or something. Help us remember.
Leonid managed to beat Issay Kagan 9-1 in a friendly "match", thus hitting 2400 just as his time was running out (there were still deadlines on norms and ratings back then). Quite a fortuitous coincidence.

Since I'm not mincing words now, my predecessor, International Arbiter Gary Bekker, somehow decided that this was OK, even though he freely admits to not being present while most of the "games" were being "played" in this "match". Gary also allowed this "match" to be rated by FIDE, although I believe the ACF Ratings Officer had the good sense to refuse this match for rating.

FIDE has since refused to rate such friendly matches; not the only time that FIDE has amended its regulations in response to abuse of the system by Australians.

Alan Shore
10-02-2006, 01:58 AM
Leonid managed to beat Issay Kagan 9-1 in a friendly "match", thus hitting 2400 just as his time was running out (there were still deadlines on norms and ratings back then). Quite a fortuitous coincidence.

Since I'm not mincing words now, my predecessor, International Arbiter Gary Bekker, somehow decided that this was OK, even though he freely admits to not being present while most of the "games" were being "played" in this "match". Gary also allowed this "match" to be rated by FIDE, although I believe the ACF Ratings Officer had the good sense to refuse this match for rating.

Well... dodgy as! What's the story Leonid?


FIDE has since refused to rate such friendly matches; not the only time that FIDE has amended its regulations in response to abuse of the system by Australians.

The other well known instance is the Zonal where sub-2300's, including an 1800 players got FM titles but are there others?

PHAT
10-02-2006, 06:03 AM
Leonid managed to ...

Thanks Greg. I guess Leonid had "forgotten" the circumstances and decided to let someone else remember for him.

I wonder: Was there an appearence fee for Kagan? I think a few thousand dollars would be in order.

eclectic
10-02-2006, 06:07 AM
FIDE master titles do not come out of cornflakes packets.


Unless of course Kellogs could be persuaded to sponsor the next zonal. ;)

http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=85759&postcount=7

guess my pun went over people's heads or was really, really bad

:rolleyes:

:cool:

arosar
10-02-2006, 06:32 AM
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=85759&postcount=7

guess my pun went over people's heads or was really, really bad

:rolleyes:

:cool:

You used too many words.

AR

Rhubarb
10-02-2006, 06:34 AM
Thanks Greg. I guess Leonid had "forgotten" the circumstances and decided to let someone else remember for him.

I wonder: Was there an appearence fee for Kagan? I think a few thousand dollars would be in order.wtf? account sharing's illegal apparently.

PHAT
10-02-2006, 06:35 AM
guess my pun went over people's heads or was really, really bad

I got it. It was good.

eclectic
10-02-2006, 07:53 AM
You used too many words.

AR

i guess part of the queenstown bug and resultant verbal diahhorea which hit you must have rubbed off a little on me too ... :whistle: ;)

auriga
11-02-2006, 09:18 AM
Regarding the 1999 event, this seems to be somewhat of an exaggeration. eclectic has now posted the crosstable: which of these players do you regard as 'low-rated club players'. Maybe five of the 26 players were rated below 2000 ACF, of these two qualified for the FM title (one didn't apply for the title).

This is a pretty misleading statement. You make it seem like there were a lot of players around this 1400 mark. Of the 26 players, one was unrated (the Fijian), and I can only see one other who might possibly have been rated below 1400 (I don't have old ACF lists, so don't know for sure).

I can say for certain that none of the 26 players has an ACF rating today under 1700.


hmm, are we going to see a retraction of the original post
now we know most of the facts are wrong or misleading?!

this is the problem with people making 'authorative sounding' posts
when they didn't actually go to the event (or attend any tournaments or club for that matter). they get it all wrong.

it's well documented the 1999 tournament didn't turn out as intended.
however, future tournaments have given titles to players who had performance ratings of 2200-2300. this is not too bad.
still, i think a minimun criteria (eg. attain 2300 FIDE) should be introduced.

auriga
11-02-2006, 09:43 AM
Leonid managed to beat Issay Kagan 9-1 in a friendly "match", thus hitting 2400 just as his time was running out (there were still deadlines on norms and ratings back then). Quite a fortuitous coincidence.

Since I'm not mincing words now, my predecessor, International Arbiter Gary Bekker, somehow decided that this was OK, even though he freely admits to not being present while most of the "games" were being "played" in this "match". Gary also allowed this "match" to be rated by FIDE, although I believe the ACF Ratings Officer had the good sense to refuse this match for rating.

FIDE has since refused to rate such friendly matches; not the only time that FIDE has amended its regulations in response to abuse of the system by Australians.

wasn't there also some question mark over the indonesia tournament as well?
in fairness, leonid is IM strength - maybe his path to the IM title is best left in history.

however, herein lies the problem. the 'old fashioned' road to the title involved few opportunities hence the need to bend the rules. the oceania zonal (which previously required travel to vietnam/malaysia) now improves those opportunies (we just need to add the extra criteria rules for FM/IM to avoid problems from 1999)

peter_parr
14-02-2006, 10:49 AM
hmm, are we going to see a retraction of the original post
now we know most of the facts are wrong or misleading?!

this is the problem with people making 'authorative sounding' posts
when they didn't actually go to the event (or attend any tournaments or club for that matter). they get it all wrong.

it's well documented the 1999 tournament didn't turn out as intended.
however, future tournaments have given titles to players who had performance ratings of 2200-2300. this is not too bad.
still, i think a minimun criteria (eg. attain 2300 FIDE) should be introduced.

“23 of the 26 Australians rated above 1400 who competed in the Gold Coast were internationally titled just after the events in 1999.”

Pax and Auriga please note this statement made by me in regard to the Gold Coast sub zonal of 1999 is correct.

One player from the World Championship Gold Coast Sub-Zonal 1999 Qualified for the next stage of the World Championship – was awarded a FIDE International title – average rating of opponents from the 10 games was 1459.

All other players who scored 50% in the event were also awarded FIDE International titles.

It is an established fact that only three of the 26 Australians rated above 1400 remained untitled after the Gold Coast sub zonal. Nine of the 26 Australians were already titled before the sub zonal and Australia received another 14 new FIDE

International titles from the Gold Coast making 23 of the 26 Australians above 1400 titled.

Later sub-zonals in Fiji and New Zealand created further similar titles.

FIDE titles were given away in the Fiji sub zonal with 5 beginners (4 from Fiji, 1 from NZ) scoring 25 losses from 25 games (against rated players) giving every Australian 5 of 5 in a 9 round event. Every Australian was FIDE titled after this Fiji event – all scored above 50%!!

pax
14-02-2006, 11:17 AM
FIDE titles were given away in the Fiji sub zonal with 5 beginners (4 from Fiji, 1 from NZ) scoring 25 losses from 25 games (against rated players) giving every Australian 5 of 5 in a 9 round event. Every Australian was FIDE titled after this Fiji event – all scored above 50%!!

Bill Egan did not score 50%, and was not titled after the event.

Only two Australians without titles scored 50% or more in this event. Those players shared the same surname - no prizes for guessing that name!

pax
14-02-2006, 11:20 AM
I also note that Stuart Fancy and Paul Spiller remain untitled despite 50% scores in the Fiji Zonal. Was this after the rule change to limit titles to 2 FM and 1 IM?

pax
14-02-2006, 11:31 AM
FIDE titles were given away in the Fiji sub zonal with 5 beginners (4 from Fiji, 1 from NZ) scoring 25 losses from 25 games (against rated players) giving every Australian 5 of 5 in a 9 round event. Every Australian was FIDE titled after this Fiji event – all scored above 50%!!

Let's clarify what you're talking about here. You are actually referring to the Women's zonal, not the Open zonal. Is that correct?

arosar
14-02-2006, 11:55 AM
I think Peter will only be made happy if some of the blokes followed Cathy Forbes' example. She'd apparently had some sort of feminist "eureka" moment and returned her WIM title to FIDE.

AR

PHAT
14-02-2006, 12:36 PM
Cathy Forbes' example.

More info please.

peter_parr
15-02-2006, 10:16 AM
FIDE titles were given away in the Fiji sub zonal with 5 beginners (4 from Fiji, 1 from NZ) scoring 25 losses from 25 games (against rated players) giving every Australian 5 of 5 in a 9 round event. Every Australian was FIDE titled after this Fiji event – all scored above 50%!!


Let's clarify what you're talking about here. You are actually referring to the Women's zonal, not the Open zonal. Is that correct?

Correct – Women’s sub-zonal.
50% or 67% was extremely easy for all Australians with five Australians scoring 25-0 against unrated locals (each 5 out of 5 in the 9 round event).

All the world championship sub-zonals Gold Coast, Fiji, New Zealand are held with open sub-zonals and women’s sub-zonals.

Titles awarded in each and every event are IM, FM, WIM, WFM.

14 new FIDE titles awarded to Australians players alone in Gold Coast Zonal – 6 new FIDE titles awarded in Fiji and another 6 in New Zealand.

Brian Jones is right about the “snowball” effect.

New Zealand and Fiji had already numerous titled players from Gold Coast Zonal and the next in line picked up more titles in Fiji and NZ.

Finally in the Gold Coast Open Sub Zonal players scored 2 out of 2 against under 1400 rated players and 2.5/7 against players over 1400 drawing with each other on their way to FIDE titles.

All FIDE titles are de-valued if we continue with this way with this “snowball” supported by Brian Jones who wants more and more titles this way – absurd.

Brian_Jones
15-02-2006, 11:56 AM
I saw an enjoyable series on TV recently. It was called "Grumpy Old Men".
Have I got the wrong thread?

Alan Shore
15-02-2006, 12:18 PM
I saw an enjoyable series on TV recently. It was called "Grumpy Old Men".
Have I got the wrong thread?

Yep, this is the right thread.

It's amusing seeing these little Parr vs. Jones jibes, hehe.

peter_parr
16-02-2006, 09:52 AM
I saw an enjoyable series on TV recently. It was called "Grumpy Old Men".
Have I got the wrong thread?

Yesterday in my chess shop in the Sydney CBD a regular customer (ELO rating over 300 higher than yours) has no FIDE title and does not want one.

He is a real Master having won literally dozens of games against Grandmasters and numerous draws against leading grandmasters (including Spassky) in high level tournaments. Ten minutes analysis with the real Master shows his very high standard even in 2006.

He sees FIDE give away Master titles to players ranked outside the World's top 25,000 rated players.

I had many conversations in a bygone era with my old friend Dr Max Euwe, FIDE President, World Champion and he would have never have allowed FIDE Titles to be awarded to club players regardless of strength.

Australia has a responsibility to FIDE, all nations and all genuine title-holders to ensure that titles are awarded only to players who have performed at the level required for their title.

I object in the strongest terms as do all genuine chess enthusiasts that the idea of creating as many titles as possible regardless of strength as suggested by Brian undermines the entire credibility of Master Titles and FIDE.

I am not surprised you thoroughly enjoyed the TV Series "Grumpy Old Men" no doubt consuming more cornflakes hoping for more titles to pop out of the packet.

Next Sunday I will be out and about again at the 2006 City of Sydney - having played thousands of games since my first visit to a tournament in 1946.

Why not play in the City of Sydney(see you at the bookstall) and try and qualify for the NSW Championship - a title of prestige won only by champions.

Perhaps, sadly you are too set in your ways, and prefer to watch the television.

Spiny Norman
16-02-2006, 10:09 AM
I object in the strongest terms as do all genuine chess enthusiasts that the idea of creating as many titles as possible regardless of strength as suggested by Brian undermines the entire credibility of Master Titles and FIDE.
Peter, I must be having a particularly crabby day ... but I object to people making arbitrary pronouncements about what "all genuine chess enthusiasts" find objectionable. Have you made an exhaustive survey?

Watto
16-02-2006, 10:24 AM
Has there been a chesschat poll on soft titles? I think the cons outweigh any possible pros there might be.

Spiny Norman
16-02-2006, 11:05 AM
Has there been a chesschat poll on soft titles? I think the cons outweigh any possible pros there might be.
I wonder what the Yanks think ... don't they have nationally-awarded "titles", or perhaps more accurately, "players classes" of sorts that lower-ranked players can achieve (i.e. "National Master", based on the USA ratings though, not on FIDE ratings?). I kind of like the idea of an ACF-rating-based title such as that.

EGOR
16-02-2006, 11:14 AM
I kind of like the idea of an ACF-rating-based title such as that.
They did exist, you used to be able access the list of what they were on the NSWCA wed site, but they don't seem to be there any more.:hmm:

bobby1972
16-02-2006, 11:15 AM
who cares,i mean whats it worth free entry in to a turny whats that man say 200 a year on average.

Brian_Jones
16-02-2006, 11:24 AM
This is why, when Australia was offered all those "undeserved" zonal titles some years ago in the Gold Coast, we should have kept quiet and just grabbed as many tiles as possible. The more active titled players the better - it helps future title aspirants and has a snowball effect that has not yet been seen in Australia or New Zealand!

I think we may have lost our way in the subsequent discussion. I started by referring to supposedly "undeserved" titles. I did not say the titles were undeserving. FIDE awards the titles (in accordance with the rules at the time) and they do so for life.

FIDE recognise that a person achieved a certain standard at some point in time in their life. This person may not be able to maintain the standard for ever but can help others obtain titles by playing in events where a certain number of nationalities and titled players are required. In Australia we need everyone deserving of FIDE titles to apply for them and help others deserving to obtain titles.

I have not accused anyone of gaining soft titles (I leave that to others). In the main, everyone in Australia has gained their title fairly. I am personally happy to gain an FM title in the modern Oceania Zonals to reward me for obtaining a BCF rating of 2300+ some twenty years ago.

Perhaps others want to make this a personal issue and they should question their own motives!

Phil Bourke
16-02-2006, 06:27 PM
I am personally happy to gain an FM title in the modern Oceania Zonals to reward me for obtaining a BCF rating of 2300+ some twenty years ago.
Does this make your title posthumous? :)

PHAT
16-02-2006, 09:39 PM
Does this make your title posthumous? :)

Or is it merely rank tittleation?

gbekker
19-02-2006, 10:06 PM
Dear Peter Parr,

I understand your concerns about "soft" FM titles awarded at the inaugural Oceania Zonal tournament. Nine players, including many who were rated below 2300, gained the FM title at this event.

This issue was addressed by a revision of the Zonal title regulations which now stipulate that where the Zonal Championship is an open Swiss, only the two highest scoring non-FMs shall be awarded the title. All subsequent Oceania Zonal Championships were run under these revised title regulations.

At the most recent Oceania Zonal Championship (Auckland, 2005) the two highest scoring non-FMs were were Jonathan Humphrey who came 5th with a performance rating of 2428 and Igor Bjelobrk who performed at 2364. Hardly "soft" title results.

I find your suggestion that Brian Jones should hand his FM title back to FIDE to be absurd. He was the highest placed non-FM at the 2002 Oceania Zonal Championship, where he finished with a score of 5/9, and the limit of two FM titles to be awarded was in place.

If you believe it is so easy to get an FM title at the Oceania Zonal Championship, then perhaps you should play at the next Zonal and see if this is really the case.

Regards,

IA Gary Bekker
FIDE Oceania Zonal President
gbekker@mira.net

Vlad
19-02-2006, 11:34 PM
The story Igor told me was very different. Are you playing with figures or just forgot what has happened?

gbekker
19-02-2006, 11:53 PM
Was Igor not one of the two highest scoring FMs? Did He not perform at 2364? What have I forgotten?

themovingman
20-02-2006, 12:40 AM
They did exist, you used to be able access the list of what they were on the NSWCA wed site, but they don't seem to be there any more.:hmm:

they are still on the site - main page "chess categories"

http://www.nswca.org.au/Categories.htm

and even tho the reference was the NSW handbook I would't be surprised if they were a transposition of the US system. But I do think there was an Australian 'Master' title - one which was particularly hard to obtain(??)

themovingman
20-02-2006, 12:48 AM
http://www.olimpbase.org/

has statistics of all Olympiads.
ta very much

Vlad
20-02-2006, 08:03 AM
Was Igor not one of the two highest scoring FMs? Did He not perform at 2364? What have I forgotten?

Yes, he did perform very well. But in order for the third untitled person to become an FM with help of the most recent zonal, you persuaded NZ federation to pay the FM fee for Igor. Consequently, Igor became an FM based on his rating being 2300+. I do not know what performance rating the third person had but I presume it was less than Igor's.

Bill Gletsos
20-02-2006, 10:43 AM
Yes, he did perform very well. But in order for the third untitled person to become an FM with help of the most recent zonal, you persuaded NZ federation to pay the FM fee for Igor. Consequently, Igor became an FM based on his rating being 2300+. I do not know what performance rating the third person had but I presume it was less than Igor's.I think you will find the following occurred.

Humphrey was the highest scoring non titled player on 6.5. He therefore got the FM title.
Bjelobrk along with Aaron Guthrie, Puchen Wang and Michael Steadman were all the non titled players who finished next on 5.5.

Guthrie (performance rating of 2310) was awarded the FM title from the zonal even though Bjelobrk was the one who should have gotten it based on the tie-break (sum of progressive scores).

Bjelobrk who could have had the FM title long before the Zonal since his rating was over 2300, applied for the FM title after the zonal based on his rating and not his zonal result.

If Bjelobrk had been awarded the FM title based on his zonal result then Guthrie would not have gotten the FM title from the zonal.

Spiny Norman
20-02-2006, 02:01 PM
http://www.nswca.org.au/Categories.htm


So is this a NSW thing only, or an ACF-approved national thing?

If the former, given all the outrage over the Guru's "National" championships, what are people to make of the NSWCA's appropriation of a National Master title?

So is this ACF-approved? If not, will the NSWCA withdraw the titles ... or alternatively, will the ACF endorse this and make it available to all players?

I prefer the latter course of action.

Bill Gletsos
20-02-2006, 02:12 PM
So is this a NSW thing only, or an ACF-approved national thing?My understanding is that it an ACF thing long out of date.

arosar
20-02-2006, 02:15 PM
But it should really be revived.

AR

Rincewind
20-02-2006, 02:17 PM
So is this a NSW thing only, or an ACF-approved national thing?

If the former, given all the outrage over the Guru's "National" championships, what are people to make of the NSWCA's appropriation of a National Master title?

So is this ACF-approved? If not, will the NSWCA withdraw the titles ... or alternatively, will the ACF endorse this and make it available to all players?

I prefer the latter course of action.

My reading is that it a somewhat outmoded ACF thing. Which makes your other questions moot. Perhaps Bill would know of the top of his head for sure.

(edit: seems his impression was the same as mine just he wasn't in interupted in the middle of writing his reply ;) )

ursogr8
20-02-2006, 02:49 PM
But it should really be revived.

AR

I agree with this sentiment of yours AR.

I wonder if the title is reached and then retained even if the rating drops later. For example, if a relative newcomer got to category 5, and subsequently his/her rating dropped to 995, do/did they retain the title.


starter

peter_parr
21-02-2006, 11:50 AM
Dear Peter Parr,

I understand your concerns about "soft" FM titles awarded at the inaugural Oceania Zonal tournament. Nine players, including many who were rated below 2300, gained the FM title at this event.

This issue was addressed by a revision of the Zonal title regulations which now stipulate that where the Zonal Championship is an open Swiss, only the two highest scoring non-FMs shall be awarded the title. All subsequent Oceania Zonal Championships were run under these revised title regulations.

At the most recent Oceania Zonal Championship (Auckland, 2005) the two highest scoring non-FMs were were Jonathan Humphrey who came 5th with a performance rating of 2428 and Igor Bjelobrk who performed at 2364. Hardly "soft" title results.

I find your suggestion that Brian Jones should hand his FM title back to FIDE to be absurd. He was the highest placed non-FM at the 2002 Oceania Zonal Championship, where he finished with a score of 5/9, and the limit of two FM titles to be awarded was in place.

If you believe it is so easy to get an FM title at the Oceania Zonal Championship, then perhaps you should play at the next Zonal and see if this is really the case.

Regards,

IA Gary Bekker
FIDE Oceania Zonal President
gbekker@mira.net

Dear Gary Bekker,

The 3 Oceania sub zonals created a total of 26 FIDE international titles (IM, FM, WIM, WFM).

The total number of soft titles from these 26 new FIDE title is 26. It is a fact that none of the 26 players had achieved the regular minimum FIDE rating for the title they received after the sub zonal tournaments.

A performance rating in a single event above 2300 has been achieved by thousands of players but FM titles awarded when players have a 2300 rating.

I myself (2227 ACF) have performed above 2500 FIDE – so what. You claim Bjelobrk as hardly a soft title.

The fact is you gave the soft title to another player. The untitled Bjelobrk was NOT a soft title at all from the sub zonal – he earned his title elsewhere. The suggestion to return all these titles to FIDE was first made by GM Yasser Seirawan to the ACF President.

The advice given by FIDE (Kevin O’Connell) was the 1999 sub-zonal should be a round robin but an open sub-zonal should be restricted to players 2300+ (not open to all low rated players to create numerous international titles).

You suggested I play in the 1999 sub-zonal for an easy title and you are suggesting it yet again.

I repeat yet again that the basic FIDE requirement for the FM title is 2300.

I do not want a soft title.
Many players in Australia and around the world strive hard (and many fail) to get IM, FM, WIM and WFM titles yet our sub-zonal creates 26 title holders – all soft titles. The sooner our sub zone is returned to the Asian zone the better – where in accordance with FIDE regulations the leading players only from each country compete making titles much harder to achieve.

Peter Parr FIDE International Arbiter
FIDE Rules Commission (1982-1986)
FIDE Arbiter Commission (1990-1994)

Vlad
21-02-2006, 02:29 PM
In general I agree that most of the zonal titles are soft. However, I do not think that Smerdon's or Zhong's titles are soft anymore, even though they probably were soft at the time when they received them.:) Consequently your claim 26 out of 26 is an exaggeration.

themovingman
21-02-2006, 02:55 PM
I agree with this sentiment of yours AR.

I wonder if the title is reached and then retained even if the rating drops later. For example, if a relative newcomer got to category 5, and subsequently his/her rating dropped to 995, do/did they retain the title.


starter
let us not get carried away here, I doubt (especially in the lower echelons) this is or was to do with a certificate-type thing.

Just a description like "oh him he's a Category 4 player - a strong one" as a shorthand since sometime our ratings go up/down by 50 or so points

nothing's stopping us usin informally anyway

although it could be a badge of attainment I suppose ...

my highest is Category 3 - although before the first addition (circa 2000) it would be Category 4

ursogr8
21-02-2006, 03:15 PM
let us not get carried away here....
I can assure you TMM, I don't want to be carried away,
or even moved by you, despite your pluralness of handles. ;)


I doubt (especially in the lower echelons) this is or was to do with a certificate-type thing.

But if it is 'official' ACF title then surely it can be recognised by Chess Victoria.


Just a description like "oh him he's a Category 4 player - a strong one" as a shorthand since sometime our ratings go up/down by 50 or so points

Do what you like with them in NSW. Your call.


nothing's stopping us usin informally anyway

although it could be a badge of attainment I suppose ...

my highest is Category 3 - although before the first addition (circa 2000) it would be Category 4

Agreed, provided they not just about to be house-keeped off the books.

regards
starter

peter_parr
22-02-2006, 11:31 AM
The total number of soft titles from these 26 new FIDE title is 26. It is a fact that none of the 26 players had achieved the regular minimum FIDE rating for the title they received after the sub zonal tournaments.


In general I agree that most of the zonal titles are soft. However, I do not think that Smerdon's or Zhong's titles are soft anymore, even though they probably were soft at the time when they received them.:) Consequently your claim 26 out of 26 is an exaggeration.

With respect my claim of 26 out of 26 is not an exaggeration.

It is a fact that when each of the 26 players received their FIDE titles each of the 26 titles were soft titles.

Of course in later years Smerdon and Zhong on many occasions have scored IM results (2450+ performance) and have ratings above 2400 and have proved that they fully deserve the IM title.

Smerdon has a GM norm and I hope both players secure their GM titles soon – if and when they do they will have performed at 2600 and have a rating of 2500+.

I hope we have more and more FIDE titled players but NOT SOFT titles.

Australia has many players who have competed in Olympiads and many tournaments and have not achieved 3 x IM norms (2450+) and 2400 rating.

They are not IM’s.

We should not be giving away 26 FIDE titles to players in 3 sub zonals to 26 players who at the time of the sub zonals are not of sufficient standard.
Most of these 26 will never ever achieve the basic rating required for the titles given to them in these 3 sub-zonals.

peter_parr
08-03-2006, 12:04 PM
I am personally happy to gain an FM title in the modern Oceania Zonals to reward me for obtaining a BCF rating of 2300+ some twenty years ago.

FIDE has a title Honorary Grandmaster (HGM) awarded by FIDE to players like IM Golombek in their declining years.

FIDE however does not have an Honorary FM title (HFM) either self awarded or awarded by FIDE for players who claim to have been 2300 + BCF twenty years ago (NO FIDE rating while in England – no title by FIDE)

If FIDE decides in my declining years in 20 years time to award me an Honorary FIDE Master title (HFM) I will have no hesitation in returning the award to FIDE in accordance with the suggestions of GM Yasser Seirawan.


Peter Parr (OAM)

Garvinator
18-10-2006, 07:15 PM
In the light of many people aquiring IM and FM titles on a basis of one good (or even reasonable) result in the zonal one can argue that even the titles should not be for life :)
as I have argued many times.

MichaelBaron
19-10-2006, 02:48 AM
as I have argued many times.

I think those people who get their FM/IM title through the zonals should be given 3-5 years to get their fide rating to the 2300/2400 mark respectively.

Right now in Aus we got IMs rated around 2300 at their best and FMs rated under 2100!

One of my favorite stories involving a titled player is the one where FM (rated about 2100 Fide) offered his opponent a draw and after the opponent calmly rejected the draw offer and went on to win a game started running around the chess club and screaming "HOw dares he to reject a draw offer from a titled player":D

pax
27-10-2006, 08:18 AM
I think those people who get their FM/IM title through the zonals should be given 3-5 years to get their fide rating to the 2300/2400 mark respectively.

Well if they got their rating to 2300, they wouldn't need the FM title from the Zonal, would they?

MichaelBaron
27-10-2006, 11:43 AM
Well if they got their rating to 2300, they wouldn't need the FM title from the Zonal, would they?

Pax, we now got FMs who are 2000-2100 in strength only! This is turning the title into a joke. Its not that those people are underrated. It has been years since they got the titles and they still can not break 2200 (for some of them -2100). How can a person who never made it to 2100 call himself a Master? Yet such FMs exist:hmm: Again, I obviously do not blame the players who got the titles. It is their "good luck" I guess.

Brian_Jones
27-10-2006, 11:56 AM
;)
Pax, we now got FMs who are 2000-2100 in strength only! This is turning the title into a joke. Its not that those people are underrated. It has been years since they got the titles and they still can not break 2200 (for some of them -2100). How can a person who never made it to 2100 call himself a Master? Yet such FMs exist:hmm: Again, I obviously do not blame the players who got the titles. It is their "good luck" I guess.

Michael. Remember you will get old soon enough and then your rating will hit the floor. I can hear the thud now. :eek:

When I came to Australia in 1987 (as a middle aged man) I had a British BCF rating of 215 (Elo 2320). But I have come down gradually over almost 20 years.

Maybe it's the sun and the crownies in my case. What will your excuse be?

MichaelBaron
27-10-2006, 01:22 PM
;)

Michael. Remember you will get old soon enough and then your rating will hit the floor. I can hear the thud now. :eek:

When I came to Australia in 1987 (as a middle aged man) I had a British BCF rating of 215 (Elo 2320). But I have come down gradually over almost 20 years.

Maybe it's the sun and the crownies in my case. What will your excuse be?

Brian, I was not referring to anyone in particular...(Certainly not to you)
Anyway, If you were 2320..why worry about Fide title based on on Zonal result. I was referring to FMs who "never got to the 2300 level" not the ones who were 2300 earlier on in life but are rated 2100 now.

But surely you are not going to deny that a lot of people got the title by fluke. Here are some names:
Stawsky
Dwyer
Your son Lee
Szuveges
..........The list can go on I think......I have been in Aus since 1991 only...but all 4 people listed above are around my age so i would be very much surprised if any of them were 2300 before 1991

Btw, I have just realised something funny.
In your family you got a very strong IM G.Lane

But also 3 Zonal beneficiaries in the same family!!!!!!!

Correct me if I am wrong but you, your son and your daughter have all got titles from the Zonals. May be thats why you take the issue so close to the heart.

Let me confirm once again. I have nothing against the ppl who got the titles. I just find it sad and ridiculous that the titles are being devalued as a result. Btw, If I go to the next zonal and do get an IM title by fluke (it is a bit harder now cause only one person/per zonal can get it - and since there are FMs who are much stronger than me e.g. Goldenberg , Bjelbork, Xie etc my chances are slim) I will remain realistic about my chess ability :). No title can make me play stronger.

Appendix

Dwyer 2142 FM
Jones L. 2139 FM
Szuveges 2129 FM
Jones B. 2084 FM
Stawsky 2067 FM
Lane 1967 WIM
Szuveges 1865 WIM

Brian_Jones
27-10-2006, 01:57 PM
Dwyer 2142 FM
Jones L. 2139 FM
Szuveges 2129 FM
Jones B. 2084 FM
Stawsky 2067 FM
Lane 1967 WIM
Szuveges 1865 WIM

Danny Dwyer inactive but was previously 2200+.

Lee Jones still active but highest rating was 2285 as a teenager after he won the British U14, British U15, Australian Junior (2) titles. Scored 6/13 in 1988 World Junior and Kramnik offered him a draw in Singapore in 1989. Then lost his FIDE rating when it slipped below 2200 after poor aussie championship. Became inactive for a while but regained FIDE rating some years later.

Grant Szuveges inactive (emigrated to the Netherlands?)

Brian Jones active but now a Feeble Master.

Nik Stawsky inactive (got his title in the first "unlimited titles " zonal).

Nancy Lane still active but overseas. Scored 7.5/9 in Women's Zonal in Fiji.

Narrelle Szuveges still active. Scored 66.67% in last Zonal in Auckland.

What about Feldmans, Mark Chapman, Brett Tindall, Andrew Allen and Mirko Rujevic?
Or are you just selectively disparaging against players you think you might be able to beat?

I think you should play in the next Zonal in Fiji in May 2007!
At least you will make it harder for Igor and George to get their IM titles!?

Desmond
27-10-2006, 02:09 PM
hmm I think Michael touched a nerve :hmm: :lol:

Vlad
27-10-2006, 02:30 PM
I think the most likely and deserving candidate for the title is MOLTON! But one competition is a lottery, anybody with a rating 2300+ is able to get it.

Brian_Jones
27-10-2006, 02:44 PM
hmm I think Michael touched a nerve :hmm: :lol:

Not terribly sensitive. :)

I just reserve the right to defend people who gained titles by following the rules! :evil:

Desmond
27-10-2006, 03:20 PM
Not terribly sensitive. :)

I just reserve the right to defend people who gained titles by following the rules! :evil:Yes, they got the title by following the rules. I don't think that is in dispute.

However, I don't think that you have made any meaningful response to Michael's point that giving the title to players who would never get it otherwise downgrades that title.

MichaelBaron
27-10-2006, 03:33 PM
Danny Dwyer inactive but was previously 2200+.

Lee Jones still active but highest rating was 2285 as a teenager after he won the British U14, British U15, Australian Junior (2) titles. Scored 6/13 in 1988 World Junior and Kramnik offered him a draw in Singapore in 1989. Then lost his FIDE rating when it slipped below 2200 after poor aussie championship. Became inactive for a while but regained FIDE rating some years later.

Grant Szuveges inactive (emigrated to the Netherlands?)

Brian Jones active but now a Feeble Master.

Nik Stawsky inactive (got his title in the first "unlimited titles " zonal).

Nancy Lane still active but overseas. Scored 7.5/9 in Women's Zonal in Fiji.

Narrelle Szuveges still active. Scored 66.67% in last Zonal in Auckland.

What about Feldmans, Mark Chapman, Brett Tindall, Andrew Allen and Mirko Rujevic?
Or are you just selectively disparaging against players you think you might be able to beat?

I think you should play in the next Zonal in Fiji in May 2007!
At least you will make it harder for Igor and George to get their IM titles!?


Brian, these players may be in active now..but even when they were active they have never reached 2300 Fide.

I am obviously "disparaging" against playerS i think I am able to beat :). The reason being simple. I am a typical 2300 - Feldman's Tindall, Allen etc. obviously play/played at this level at there best. Chapman is/was 2400! Rujevic is one year elder to you yet. he is still playing 2300!!!:clap:

When did Stawski play FM level chess? He never even played 2200!!!

When did your son record 2300 fide rating? - I too played with a lot of people in junior events back in Russia- Svidler, Morozevich etc. Once I even played in the same event as Topalov. However, rubbing shoulders with them does not make me a better player. I rememeber appearing on the ACF junior rating list next to your son I was 3 years younger yet I as far as I remember - I was rated above him. I also remember very clearly (hey my memory is still not that bad) that for my generation of juniors- the heros have been Trevor Tao and John-Paul Wallace. I can not recall Lee Jones having any 2300 results

My point is very clear and simple (and it is not meant to be offensive even if there is an amazing case of 3!!!! "zonal-made" titles in the same family. To be an IM you have to be 2400 Fide plus obtain 2/3 IM norms. To be an FM - 2300 Fide rating and maintain it over 24 games.

There are some players who got their titles as a result of good performance in the Zonal but they got other results to back up their reputation as strong chess players. Nobody will ever dare to say that Chapman is not a real IM! Smerdon and Zhao also got their titles from the Zonal..but look at them now :clap: They are about to become GMs soon

I was referring not to all of the title recipients that registered their "title norms" in the zonals but specifically to the ones that nobody calls MASTERS

At the same time we got some strong players: Drug, S.Chow etc. who are cleary closer 2300 level than the players discussed above.

We also got a lot of 2100+ players who are as good as some of those FMs.

To me Domagoi Dragicevic appears to be stronger than Stawsky and M.Pyke is no weaker than Lee.

P.S. Once again what i am discussing here is not a problem with some some people "running away" with a title. Congratulations to all of those who earned the title in the Zonals! I am discussing the problem with the FM (and to a significantly smaller extent IM) title depreciation.

MichaelBaron
27-10-2006, 03:53 PM
I think the most likely and deserving candidate for the title is MOLTON! But one competition is a lottery, anybody with a rating 2300+ is able to get it.

Molton, does not need the FM title or even a 'zonal-made" IM title- I am sure he will be an IM in 1-2 years from now if not sooner in any case. The same applies to Stojic.

It is indeed a lottery. In fact i would even lower a "rating floor" for the potential lottery winner to 2250. While the title should probably go to Bjelbork, Goldenberg or Xie. It can go to Canfell or me or Drug or Depasquale.....The list can go on.

I was extremely sad to see Igor Bjelbork who has been playing (and playing quite actively) at the 2400 level fail to secure an IM norm at one of the Zonals and miss another one.

Vlad
27-10-2006, 04:12 PM
From the FIDE Handbook...

1.3 Those titles gained by achieving a published rating at some time or other:
1.31 FIDE Master 2300
1.32 Candidate Master 2200
1.33 Woman FIDE Master 2100
1.34 Woman Candidate Master 2000

The rules have been changed. You do not need to play 24 games after you achieve 2300 to become a Fide master. You just need to get a published rating which is 2300 or more.

Michael, I do not think you should put my name on the list.:) Strictly speaking I am not eligible. I have to change my federation to be eligible and in the near future I am not planning to do that.

pax
27-10-2006, 04:53 PM
Pax, we now got FMs who are 2000-2100 in strength only! This is turning the title into a joke. Its not that those people are underrated. It has been years since they got the titles and they still can not break 2200 (for some of them -2100). How can a person who never made it to 2100 call himself a Master? Yet such FMs exist:hmm: Again, I obviously do not blame the players who got the titles. It is their "good luck" I guess.

My point was simply that your suggestion is equivalent to completely removing the Zonal FM titles.

I don't disagree with your general point about the FM title. It is abundantly clear, not just in Australia, but all over the world that there isn't a great correlation between FM titles and playing strength. More than half of FMs are rated below 2300. There seem to be a significant number of players who don't even bother applying for the FM title despite qualifying by rating.

Is there any benefit to being an FM these days? I can't recall of any recent tournaments with discounts for FMs - not even Brian's SIO has one. ;) The only thing I can think of is the 'titled opponents' requirement for IM and GM norms.

MichaelBaron
27-10-2006, 05:07 PM
My point was simply that your suggestion is equivalent to completely removing the Zonal FM titles.

Is there any benefit to being an FM these days? I can't recall of any recent tournaments with discounts for FMs - not even Brian's SIO has one. ;) The only thing I can think of is the 'titled opponents' requirement for IM and GM norms.

Agreed. FM titles no longer hold any value these days. Depreciation..you know :hmm:

Vlad
27-10-2006, 05:13 PM
Agreed. FM titles no longer hold any value these days. Depreciation..you know :hmm:

If I win a game against Ilic next Tuesday I will cross the 2300 line for the first time. So if I am successful should I apply or I should not? :doh: :lol:

Brian_Jones
27-10-2006, 05:35 PM
The only thing I can think of is the 'titled opponents' requirement for IM and GM norms.

Yes, but as I have said before, this could be important in Australia. The more titled players the better if we want players to get IM or GM norms in Australia.

But I agree that, from a prestige point of view, only GM and IM titles really count.

But I am happy for the youngster that gains his FM title by winning an Asian or World Youth or Cadet event - even the new U8 title in Georgia!

BTW are there any FIDE CM's yet in Australia?

Garvinator
27-10-2006, 05:41 PM
If I win a game against Ilic next Tuesday I will cross the 2300 line for the first time. So if I am successful should I apply or I should not? :doh: :lol:
If your rating is over 2300 when the January 2007 fide list is published, sure. Of course be prepared to pay.

Garvinator
27-10-2006, 05:43 PM
Is there any benefit to being an FM these days? I can't recall of any recent tournaments with discounts for FMs - not even Brian's SIO has one. ;) The only thing I can think of is the 'titled opponents' requirement for IM and GM norms.
If drug gets above 2300, he could be the only one ;)

Denis_Jessop
27-10-2006, 09:43 PM
At least you will make it harder for Igor and George to get their IM titles!?

Brian

Is this a reference to George Xie - if so, he already has his IM title. His and Nick Speck's were approved at Turin. Both are conditional on reaching the rating level of 2400.

DJ

eclectic
27-10-2006, 09:48 PM
Brian

Is this a reference to George Xie - if so, he already has his IM title. His and Nick Speck's were approved at Turin. Both are conditional on reaching the rating level of 2400.

DJ

So what happens if (for the sake of argument) they never ever reach 2400?

Denis_Jessop
27-10-2006, 10:15 PM
So what happens if (for the sake of argument) they never ever reach 2400?

They don't get the title. What FIDE does in such a case is to consider and recognise/accept the norms achieved and grant the title conditional upon the rating being achieved. If that condition is not fulfilled, the grant of the title will not take effect. The rules for IM and GM titles require both specified norms and a specified minimum rating to be achieved. FIDE has adopted the practice of considering title applications once the norms have been achieved even though the rating has not.

DJ

BEN DOVER
27-10-2006, 10:16 PM
[snipped]


Michael didnt you quit chess to become a male model?

MichaelBaron
28-10-2006, 02:09 AM
If I win a game against Ilic next Tuesday I will cross the 2300 line for the first time. So if I am successful should I apply or I should not? :doh: :lol:

Apply for sure...We do need more people in our FM family that have proven to play Master standard:clap: . Lets make the "funny FMs" the minority :)

MichaelBaron
28-10-2006, 02:11 AM
Michael didnt you quit chess to become a male model?

No, I quit modelling to become a chess player;)

Garvinator
28-10-2006, 11:36 AM
No, I quit modelling to become a chess player;)
did you realise that for you it was about the same paying gig ;) :cool:

MichaelBaron
29-10-2006, 12:08 AM
did you realise that for you it was about the same paying gig ;) :cool:

LOL:D

Brian_Jones
29-10-2006, 12:49 PM
Molton, does not need the FM title or even a 'zonal-made" IM title- I am sure he will be an IM in 1-2 years from now if not sooner in any case. The same applies to Stojic..

Over the years I have seen many players gain multiple IM norms but subsequently were unable to attain a FIDE rating of 2400, despite years of trying.

Some of these players took chess very seriously and looked worthy IMs.

But the 2400 barrier is tough!

antichrist
29-10-2006, 01:55 PM
Over the years I have seen many players gain multiple IM norms but subsequently were unable to attain a FIDE rating of 2400, despite years of trying.

Some of these playes took chess very seriously and looked worthy IMs.

But the 2400 barrier is tough!

Too tough for you too?

Are you completely happy re migrating to Aussieland?

MichaelBaron
29-10-2006, 02:32 PM
Over the years I have seen many players gain multiple IM norms but subsequently were unable to attain a FIDE rating of 2400, despite years of trying.

Some of these players took chess very seriously and looked worthy IMs.

But the 2400 barrier is tough!


I agree...it is tough. This is why people who reach 2400 Fide rating can be considered as strong players and real masters.:clap:

How do you define "looking like a worthy IM"? If somebody is taking chess seriously and is playing a lot of fide-rated tournaments, he should have no trouble reaching a 2400 rating (as long as his chess strength is really at the 2400 level). Again, this is a difference between an IM and a strong FM.

Denis_Jessop
29-10-2006, 03:51 PM
I agree...it is tough. This is why people who reach 2400 Fide rating can be considered as strong players and real masters.:clap:

How do you define "looking like a worthy IM"? If somebody is taking chess seriously and is playing a lot of fide-rated tournaments, he should have no trouble reaching a 2400 rating (as long as his chess strength is really at the 2400 level). Again, this is a difference between an IM and a strong FM.

Wouldn't such a player have to play quite a few tournaments outside Australia. It is not so easy getting one's rating up against players reoughly equal to, or lower rated than, oneself. There are only 9 Australians rated above 2400 on the current FIDE list and 4 of them - Rogers, Smerdon, Wohl and Wallace at present spend much or all of their time overseas while Tao plays very little. That leaves only Johansen, Zhao, Lane and Solomon and Zhao also plays very little because of studies. George Xie,who is currently 2375 and needs to reach 2400 for his title, has been hovering around that mark for the last 12 months from recollection. The other aspirant, Nick Speck, is at 2357. I would think that he will find it hard to make up 43 points playing only in Australia.

DJ

Brian_Jones
29-10-2006, 04:03 PM
Wouldn't such a player have to play quite a few tournaments outside Australia. It is not so easy getting one's rating up against players reoughly equal to, or lower rated than, oneself. There are only 9 Australians rated above 2400 on the current FIDE list and 4 of them - Rogers, Smerdon, Wohl and Wallace at present spend much or all of their time overseas while Tao plays very little. That leaves only Johansen, Zhao, Lane and Solomon and Zhao also plays very little because of studies. George Xie,who is currently 2375 and needs to reach 2400 for his title, has been hovering around that mark for the last 12 months from recollection. The other aspirant, Nick Speck, is at 2357. I would think that he will find it hard to make up 43 points playing only in Australia.

DJ

The 2007 Doeberl Cup and 2007 Sydney International Open should give ample opportunity to meet players with FIDE ratings above 2400. All we can do is give aspiring players the opportunity.

See attached form!

Brian_Jones
29-10-2006, 04:07 PM
How do you define "looking like a worthy IM"?

Scoring IM norms!

MichaelBaron
29-10-2006, 05:10 PM
Scoring IM norms!

Ok, for me IM-level players are ppl who are scoring IM norms plus 2400 rating :) :hmm:

Vlad
29-10-2006, 09:14 PM
Ok, for me IM-level players are ppl who are scoring IM norms plus 2400 rating :) :hmm:

Sounds like a reasonable statement. Just getting performances above 2450 does not seem to be too hard. Greg's performance rating in the NSW championship is about 2620. My performance rating in the Ford memorial is about 2520. The fact that your rating is 2400 means that you can play at that level regularly rather than occasionally.

peter_parr
31-10-2006, 01:53 PM
;) When I came to Australia in 1987 (as a middle aged man) I had a British BCF rating of 215 (Elo 2320). But I have come down gradually over almost 20 years.

Maybe it's the sun and the crownies in my case. What will your excuse be?

On 4th July 1987 in Walsall, England Greater Manchester were defeated 8-12 by Middlesex.

The reason for the defeat in the match report was Greater Manchester had only two players British BCF rating over 200 (J.Horner and V.Knox).

If Brian Jones and others had been rated over 200 his team Greater Manchester would have done better.

For the record B.A. Jones lost to the little known K.Shovel in the match.

The requirement for FIDE Masters in 1987 was a minimum 2300 FIDE rating with at least 24 FIDE rated games.

Brian Jones had no FIDE rating at any time while he was in England and his FIDE rating in Australia has always been below 2300.

Note 3 of the 6 players in our 1986 Olympiad team were rated below Brian’s so called 2320 rating.

Note after the Queensland sub zonals of 1999 that 23 of the 26 Australian rated above 1400 ACF (1400 is not a mistake) who competed in the events were now internationally titled – (14 new international titles awarded).

Many low rated club players simply drew with each other scoring 50% for an international title.

The women’s sub-zonal in Fiji saw the 5 locals score 0/25 against the rest – easy titles yes.

Why are the low rated IM’s and WIM’s allowed free entry for life in all Australian tournaments?

MichaelBaron
31-10-2006, 07:36 PM
On 4th July 1987 in Walsall, England Greater Manchester were defeated 8-12 by Middlesex.

The reason for the defeat in the match report was Greater Manchester had only two players British BCF rating over 200 (J.Horner and V.Knox).

If Brian Jones and others had been rated over 200 his team Greater Manchester would have done better.

For the record B.A. Jones lost to the little known K.Shovel in the match.

The requirement for FIDE Masters in 1987 was a minimum 2300 FIDE rating with at least 24 FIDE rated games.

Brian Jones had no FIDE rating at any time while he was in England and his FIDE rating in Australia has always been below 2300.

Note 3 of the 6 players in our 1986 Olympiad team were rated below Brian’s so called 2320 rating.

Note after the Queensland sub zonals of 1999 that 23 of the 26 Australian rated above 1400 ACF (1400 is not a mistake) who competed in the events were now internationally titled – (14 new international titles awarded).

Many low rated club players simply drew with each other scoring 50% for an international title.

The women’s sub-zonal in Fiji saw the 5 locals score 0/25 against the rest – easy titles yes.

Why are the low rated IM’s and WIM’s allowed free entry for life in all Australian tournaments?

First of all let me emphasise once again that i never questioned validity of the zonal-obtained titles for specific players (e.g Brian or his family) but I was discussing validity of those titles in general.

May be we can tackle the problem by having an Aus Master title that could be given to players who reach say 2300 ACF (God, this is one more reason to fix our national rating system before this suggestion could be implemented) and grant those players with the titles that can lead to free entry into the tournaments. I think that we should keep free entries for IMs no matter what their rating is. While some WIM titles obtained from the zonals have been extremely soft, all the IM title recipients have been above 2300 FIDE so they have been at least not to far from the IM level in terms of strength.

As far as common sense is concerned, I find it rather entertaining that our 2 1800 rated WIMs get free entry while George (Xie) and the two Igors (Goldenberg and Bjelbork) have to pay full entry fees.

pax
31-10-2006, 07:53 PM
I agree...it is tough. This is why people who reach 2400 Fide rating can be considered as strong players and real masters.:clap:

Trevor Tao was over 2400 (or was it 2500?) way back in 1994, and still hasn't made IM :)

pax
31-10-2006, 08:15 PM
Note after the Queensland sub zonals of 1999 that 23 of the 26 Australian rated above 1400 ACF (1400 is not a mistake) who competed in the events were now internationally titled – (14 new international titles awarded).


1400 may not be a mistake, but it is at least an obfuscation. Question: what was the rating of the lowest rated player over 1400 ACF? What was the lowest rating of an Australian who received a title?

Garvinator
31-10-2006, 08:18 PM
Trevor Tao was over 2400 (or was it 2500?) way back in 1994, and still hasn't made IM :)
Has Trevor ever played or won a tournament outside of South Australia?

pax
31-10-2006, 08:19 PM
Here's another one: What was the highest rating of a player who did not score 50% (the level required to qualify for the automatic FM title)?

pax
31-10-2006, 08:48 PM
Has Trevor ever played or won a tournament outside of South Australia?

I don't know about winning, but of course he has played outside SA. His original IM norm result was in Melbourne, and he played the 1994 Olympiad.

MichaelBaron
31-10-2006, 08:50 PM
Here's another one: What was the highest rating of a player who did not score 50% (the level required to qualify for the automatic FM title)?

The reality is - one does not even need a Fide /minimal ACF rating to get admitted to play in the zonal. Just pay your entry fee - and you are in!:whistle:

Bill Gletsos
31-10-2006, 09:10 PM
1400 may not be a mistake, but it is at least an obfuscation.Surely not. :hand:

Question: what was the rating of the lowest rated player over 1400 ACF?I believe ACF 1730 who was FIDE unrated.

What was the lowest rating of an Australian who received a title?I believe ACF 1782 whose FIDE was 2045. There were two who had higher ACF ratings but were both FIDE unrated.

Bill Gletsos
31-10-2006, 09:13 PM
Here's another one: What was the highest rating of a player who did not score 50% (the level required to qualify for the automatic FM title)?ACF 2338 who was FIDE 2435.

MichaelBaron
31-10-2006, 09:56 PM
1782 ACF got an FM title.

Any 2300 rated FM can give a simul to 8 1782 rated FMs :)

bergil
31-10-2006, 10:11 PM
1782 ACF got an FM title.

Any 2300 rated FM can give a simul to 8 1782 rated FMs :)
Who gives a rats backside. :wall:

Garvinator
31-10-2006, 10:21 PM
Michael,

This topic isnt new on here about de valued fide titles: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2946

Alan Shore
31-10-2006, 10:32 PM
Hey Garvin, feel like having a bowl of cereal? ;)

pax
31-10-2006, 10:36 PM
ACF 2338 who was FIDE 2435.
Ssh! You're giving the game away :)

pax
31-10-2006, 10:43 PM
1782 ACF got an FM title.

I'm not sure it was FM - Peter's numbers include the Women's zonal (a point that he doesn't make explicit).

I actually agree that a lot of these titles were pretty crazy. FIDE has recognised that, by restricting the number of FIDE titles which can be claimed in subsequent zonals.

I just don't think there is anything to be gained by banging on about it. The titles are legitimate, and cannot be withdrawn. So what if there are a few extra titles blowing around? The only ones that really matter in prestige or professional terms are GM and IM in the end.

Brian_Jones
01-11-2006, 07:56 AM
In September 1987, when departing England, I had an official British Chess Federation (BCF) rating of 215 (Elo equivalent 2320). I am happy to call upon witnesses to testify to this fact.

If Mr Parr disputes this, then he is bringing the game of chess into disrepute with his vindictive campaign against me, making allegations on this BB which he cannot personally substantiate.

Mr Parr has effectively called me a liar. He should withdraw his allegations against me (an Australian FM).

If not then the NSWCA and ACF should take the necessary steps to withdraw his life memberships.

peter_parr
02-11-2006, 11:44 AM
In September 1987, when departing England, I had an official British Chess Federation (BCF) rating of 215 (Elo equivalent 2320). I am happy to call upon witnesses to testify to this fact.

I do not understand why Brian Jones has taken offence to my post 130 in this thread.

I have checked the post and cannot find any errors. The details of the Greater Manchester - Middlesex match played on 4th July 1987 is taken from the August 1987 issue of British Chess Magazine on page 356.

The article also advises that the average rating of the players in the Middlesex team was 201 which included 6 players rated above 200 compared to only 2 players rated over 200 in the Greater Manchester Team (Jeff Horner and Vic Knox).

This is the reason given for the defeat of the Greater Manchester team.

Brian Jones advises that in September 1987 his BCF rating was 215.
I made no mention of this in my post 130.

In regard to Brian's FIDE rating it can be seen that he had no FIDE rating while in England.

His first major event a few months after his arrival in Australia was the Australian Championship at Gosford where he was an unrated player scoring 7/13 against 13 FIDE rated players - average rating of 2147 -(FIDE performance rating 2175).

My statements on soft titles are also correct.

Brian do you have a query on any of the facts stated in post 130 or today’s post?

It was not meant to offend you.

MichaelBaron
02-11-2006, 01:49 PM
It is very easy to check the Fide ratings of the players. www.chessbase.com contains a database of all fide-rated players. That database also inculdes the graphs on how the ratings have been evolving over the time and it is easy to see the highest ratings achieved by the players.

Thus, there is no need to dispute whether Brian has ever been 2320 or not or whether Nick Stawski has ever been rated 2300 etc.. We can simply look it up in the database :).

pax
02-11-2006, 02:02 PM
It is very easy to check the Fide ratings of the players. www.chessbase.com contains a database of all fide-rated players. That database also inculdes the graphs on how the ratings have been evolving over the time and it is easy to see the highest ratings achieved by the players.


:hmm: Hmm.. Brian's entry says "ELO: no rating, and Trend: no trend". That's not terribly helpful. Are you looking in a different place to me Michael?

Brian_Jones
02-11-2006, 02:09 PM
Brian Jones advises that in September 1987 his BCF rating was 215. In regard to Brian's FIDE rating it can be seen that he had no FIDE rating while in England.

Now this is correct. It is also well-known that ELO = (BCF x 8) +600 = 2320

So once in my career I had an ELO over 2300.

But what is the point?

Very few players in England has FIDE ratings in the 1980s.

So what are you trying to say? That I have never been strong enough to be an FM?

That the BCF rating system lacks credability?

Well there are plenty of FMs who reached 2300 once then fell back down.

Just like there are plenty of IMs who reached 2400 once then fell back down.

Or are you saying something else? Please clarify.

MichaelBaron
02-11-2006, 02:57 PM
Now this is correct. It is also well-known that ELO = (BCF x 8) +600 = 2320

.


So Brian, have you ever had a Fide rating above 2300? As for BCF I have never played any events in England so i have no idea what BCF rating of 215 is equivalent too.

Anyway, I am pretty sure Stawski never had a BCF of 215..yet got the title as well :)

jase
02-11-2006, 03:13 PM
As for BCF I have never played any events in England so i have no idea what BCF rating of 215 is equivalent too.

Michael,
Brian just supplied you with the commonly used forumale for converting BCF ratings to ELO ratings.


But what is the point? ...
So what are you trying to say?
Ducks and drakes. (Duck theason!)Are you evading the point or is it simply that others like Amiel and I can read the implication but you cannot?
You claim a BCF rating of 215 (2320 ELO equivalent)
Peter says that in a relevant BCF Magazine, a report of a match in which you competed appears, identifying only two players with +200 BCF ratings on your team. Neither of those players bore the name Brian Jones. The implication would be that your rating was below 200 BCF, at least at that time. N'est-il pas?
Let me take you by the hand
And lead you through the streets of London ....:P
What it has to do with the price of eggs is beyond me. Or irrelevant. Both?

Brian_Jones
02-11-2006, 03:17 PM
Anyway, I am pretty sure Stawski never had a BCF of 215..yet got the title as well :)

In the first year of the Oceamia Zonal there was no limit on the numbers of titles awarded. So it was only necessary to score 66.67% or 50%.
I think Nik Stawski, Kerry Stead, Grant Szuveges and others scored 50% but they keep pretty quiet about it!

In subsequent years, the number of titles was limited to 1 x IM and 2 x FM titles. These titles have been less controversial.

For 2007 there are also 2 x new CM titles (I think)

If everyone turned up to play (including you Michael) then maybe the titles would not be quite so soft. :)

Brian_Jones
02-11-2006, 04:42 PM
Peter says that in a relevant BCF Magazine, a report of a match in which you competed appears, identifying only two players with +200 BCF ratings on your team. Neither of those players bore the name Brian Jones. The implication would be that your rating was below 200 BCF, at least at that time. N'est-il pas?

Ha-ha so let's cut to the chase. :)

My BCF rating for 1986/87 was 199.

My BCF Rating for 1987/88 was 215 (the new list was published in September 1987)

Isn't it obvious that a new list was published sometime after July 1987 based on my actual performance over the previous 12 months!

MichaelBaron
02-11-2006, 04:50 PM
Ha-ha so let's cut to the chase. :)

My BCF rating for 1986/87 was 199.

My BCF Rating for 1987/88 was 215 (the new list was published in September 1987)

Isn't it obvious that a new list was published sometime after July 1987 based on my actual performance over the previous 12 months!

:clap: This is great. Pity that after coming to Australia you did not play for the Australian Olympic Team:(

peter_parr
06-11-2006, 10:21 AM
The 32 players rated 220 and over on the BCF grading list appears on page 561 of British Chess Magazine December 1986

The next reference is on page 204 of British Chess Magazine May 1987 which states

"The BCF Grading Administrator John Povey resigned from the post with effect from Mid April 1987"

The next reference is on page 542 of British Chess Magazine December 1987 which states

"The BCF Grading co-ordinator Jeff Ing left this post at short notice at the end of October so further delay seems inevitable in the production of the rating list"

The next reference is on page 454 of British Chess Magazine October 1988 when the BCF grading list covered the period 1 May 1987 - 30 April 1988 and was published on 1st September 1988.

There are 36 players (mainly GM's) listed down to Sadler at 221.
BCM published all above 220.
The full list is 211 pages.
On the same page is listed some titled players all IM or GM 220 and below - Bellin, Large, Wells 220, Basman and Hartston 219, Lane 217, Keene 216, Whiteley 214.

So a player rated at the end of 1986 remained with the same rating throughout the whole of 1987 and until September 1988 when the next list was produced.

I agree with Brian that a 215 BCF rating is an impressive rating - (Gary Lane was 214 in August 2000).

I agree with Brian that a 215 BCF rating is equivalent to FIDE 2320.

3 of the 6 members of the 1986 Australian Olympiad team had FIDE ratings below 2320.

Michael - All the earlier FIDE rating lists from 1975 are on the CD Chess is Chess by Chess Informant or of course lists were produced in each of the earlier issues of Chess Informant (96 volumes to date) - handy references which trace back to when any player first had a FIDE rating.

MichaelBaron
06-11-2006, 10:33 AM
The 32 players rated 220 and over on the BCF grading list appears on page 561 of British Chess Magazine December 1986

The next reference is on page 204 of British Chess Magazine May 1987 which states

"The BCF Grading Administrator John Povey resigned from the post with effect from Mid April 1987"

The next reference is on page 542 of British Chess Magazine December 1987 which states

"The BCF Grading co-ordinator Jeff Ing left this post at short notice at the end of October so further delay seems inevitable in the production of the rating list"

The next reference is on page 454 of British Chess Magazine October 1988 when the BCF grading list covered the period 1 May 1987 - 30 April 1988 and was published on 1st September 1988.

There are 36 players (mainly GM's) listed down to Sadler at 221.
BCM published all above 220.
The full list is 211 pages.
On the same page is listed some titled players all IM or GM 220 and below - Bellin, Large, Wells 220, Basman and Hartston 219, Lane 217, Keene 216, Whiteley 214.

So a player rated at the end of 1986 remained with the same rating throughout the whole of 1987 and until September 1988 when the next list was produced.

I agree with Brian that a 215 BCF rating is an impressive rating - (Gary Lane was 214 in August 2000).

I agree with Brian that a 215 BCF rating is equivalent to FIDE 2320.

3 of the 6 members of the 1986 Australian Olympiad team had FIDE ratings below 2320.

Michael - All the earlier FIDE rating lists from 1975 are on the CD Chess is Chess by Chess Informant or of course lists were produced in each of the earlier issues of Chess Informant (96 volumes to date) - handy references which trace back to when any player first had a FIDE rating.

So when exactly was Brian 215? what is the number/ID of that Particular rating list? It is really amazing that he was rated above Keene,Basman etc.

Kevin Bonham
06-11-2006, 10:35 AM
Peter, sorry to spoil your fun but is Brian Jones listed in the September 1988 BCF rating list, and if so with what rating?

Vlad
06-11-2006, 10:48 AM
Kevin, if you read Peter's message carefully you will see that he is implying that Brian was not in the list. Peter is saying that everybody 220+ was listed + some titled players below 220 mark. Brian was neither titled nor 220+, which means he was not in the list.

I would think the discrepancy is that Brian claimed that his rating was published in 1987, while Peter found that there was no rating update in that year.

Kevin Bonham
06-11-2006, 11:18 AM
Kevin, if you read Peter's message carefully you will see that he is implying that Brian was not in the list. Peter is saying that everybody 220+ was listed + some titled players below 220 mark. Brian was neither titled nor 220+, which means he was not in the list.

But he may well have been in the full list (211 pages) at 215 which would, if true, not contradict anything Brian is saying except for the issue of exactly when Brian had that rating.

(In writing I was assuming Peter had the full list, which was a silly assumption on my part given it is 211 pp long so presumably would have been mentioned in passing and not in full in BCM. :oops:)

MichaelBaron
06-11-2006, 11:31 AM
But he may well have been in the full list (211 pages) at 215 which would, if true, not contradict anything Brian is saying except for the issue of exactly when Brian had that rating.

(In writing I was assuming Peter had the full list, which was a silly assumption on my part given it is 211 pp long so presumably would have been mentioned in passing and not in full in BCM. :oops:)

I just wonder if there is a Forum in England that is similar to ours. If there is - we can post a query over there...surey someone in GB will be able to confirm the 1987 rating

Carl Gorka
06-11-2006, 11:34 AM
I just wonder if there is a Forum in England that is similar to ours. If there is - we can post a query over there...surey someone in GB will be able to confirm the 1987 rating

I have asked....:)

Kerry Stead
06-11-2006, 03:17 PM
In the first year of the Oceamia Zonal there was no limit on the numbers of titles awarded. So it was only necessary to score 66.67% or 50%.
I think Nik Stawski, Kerry Stead, Grant Szuveges and others scored 50% but they keep pretty quiet about it!

In subsequent years, the number of titles was limited to 1 x IM and 2 x FM titles. These titles have been less controversial.
Minor point Brian, but I did not play in the 1999 Zonal. I did however play in the 2001 Zonal, however I did not recieve a title due to the modifcations to the regulations following the 1999 zonal.

Would a lot of this bickering be solved by simply posting the crosstables for the 1999 event (both Open & Womens)? Let people judge for themselves. If someone (Bill perhaps) has the SP files, it would make things much easier, or if someone has a quick way of generating a postable crosstable from a pgn file, then I would happily post this myself.

Vlad
06-11-2006, 03:24 PM
Post #42...:wall:

Desmond
06-11-2006, 03:40 PM
Post #42...:wall:When players like Johansen score 5.5/9 and Solomon score 4/9, you know that it was a hard fought tournament, regardless of what the ratings tell you.

MichaelBaron
06-11-2006, 05:56 PM
When players like Johansen score 5.5/9 and Solomon score 4/9, you know that it was a hard fought tournament, regardless of what the ratings tell you.

Nobody debates how tough the Zonals are. However, there is no question about how "soft" the FM titles have been at one stage....If the titles go to players who are rated at least close to 2300 I guess the titles do not inflate too much, but once you got FMs rated under 2100 - It makes the the titles bring "smiles" on people's faces. Anyway...at least we got no IMs who were rated U2300 Fide at the time of obtaining the title. Some African countries got 2100-2200 rated IMs :)

Desmond
07-11-2006, 04:12 PM
Nobody debates how tough the Zonals are. However, there is no question about how "soft" the FM titles have been at one stage....If the titles go to players who are rated at least close to 2300 I guess the titles do not inflate too much, but once you got FMs rated under 2100 - It makes the the titles bring "smiles" on people's faces. Anyway...at least we got no IMs who were rated U2300 Fide at the time of obtaining the title. Some African countries got 2100-2200 rated IMs :)I agree that some of the players gaining titles from the event are not at the real strength of that title. However, I think that claiming players drew their way to the titles with weak locals is false, when you consider that a strong IM like Solo came in at a score of under 50%.

pax
07-11-2006, 04:23 PM
Anyway...at least we got no IMs who were rated U2300 Fide at the time of obtaining the title.
I'm pretty sure Shane Hill was u2300 when he earned the IM title in the Asian u20 (age 15 I think) - he is currently rated 2295. Now you mention it, Smerdon was 2173 in the 1999 Zonal where he earned the IM title, and Zhao was 2242 in 2000 when he won that title.

The difference is that Smerdon and Zhao very rapidly proved that they were legitimately IM strength, while Hill retired.

MichaelBaron
08-11-2006, 01:51 AM
Any updates on the "Brian Jones 220 BCF rating saga". :hmm:

Brian_Jones
08-11-2006, 09:14 AM
Any updates on the "Brian Jones 220 BCF rating saga". :hmm:

Michael, I hope you play chess with more precision than your reading ability.

My last BCF was 215 not 220!

MichaelBaron
08-11-2006, 09:18 AM
Michael, I hope you play chess with more precision than your reading ability.

My last BCF was 215 not 220!

Sorry, its my mistake. Still i will be delighted to see proof that you were rated above Keene etc.

Brian_Jones
08-11-2006, 11:16 AM
Sorry, its my mistake.

Apology accepted.



Still i will be delighted to see proof that you were rated above Keene etc.

No idea about Keene. But I have witnesses who can testify that my final BCF rating was 215.

antichrist
08-11-2006, 11:54 AM
Apology accepted.




No idea about Keene. But I have witnesses who can testify that my final BCF rating was 215.

Are they in the same catoregy and integrity of witnesses who claim that JC rose from the dead after three days? That the BVM was appearing at Coogee Beach?

You should have learnt from FIDE Investigate thread that if it is not in writing that it does not exist. Also if it is not in the Bible or Koran also it does not exist.

arosar
08-11-2006, 01:44 PM
No idea about Keene. But I have witnesses who can testify that my final BCF rating was 215.

Was this rating actually published? We should be able to cite an actual published material instead of relying on witnesses. It's not like we're dealing with an incident. When you say witnesses, maybe all they saw was a miscalculation or something. Maybe they misunderstood the number which turned out to be something else.

AR

antichrist
09-11-2006, 05:04 PM
Was this rating actually published? We should be able to cite an actual published material instead of relying on witnesses. It's not like we're dealing with an incident. When you say witnesses, maybe all they saw was a miscalculation or something. Maybe they misunderstood the number which turned out to be something else.

AR

A very good point. I went into a shop sale yesterday and seen the price of something as $702, so I went to the boss and tried to bargain down to $600, but he told me that $702 was only for the doors and not the entire cubicle as the shop attendant had led me to believe it was. You can't always get what you want...

If it is not in black and white then it does not exist!

If we can have historical records of JC going back 2000 years surely we can have ratings records of BJ going back 20 years.

MichaelBaron
09-11-2006, 05:59 PM
If we can have historical records of JC going back 2000 years surely we can have ratings records of BJ going back 20 years.

LOL:D

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 04:49 AM
So in the open Zonal if I have read this right, there is a good chance that at least one, if not two players, will get the FM title without having beaten or drawn with a player rated over 2300 fide.

The only FM contender to have beaten a player over 2300 is Steadman.

This just seems like another argument for title de-valuation.

Garrett
12-05-2007, 06:38 AM
So in the open Zonal if I have read this right, there is a good chance that at least one, if not two players, will get the FM title without having beaten or drawn with a player rated over 2300 fide.

The only FM contender to have beaten a player over 2300 is Steadman.

This just seems like another argument for title de-valuation.

Can you argue a little bit more - I haven't got a title yet ! :P

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 07:02 AM
Can you argue a little bit more - I haven't got a title yet ! :P
I can give you a title ;)

Garrett
12-05-2007, 07:12 AM
lol - okay Garvo.

Perhaps a title is not really necessary for me after all....

Kevin Bonham
12-05-2007, 10:29 AM
So in the open Zonal if I have read this right, there is a good chance that at least one, if not two players, will get the FM title without having beaten or drawn with a player rated over 2300 fide.

The only FM contender to have beaten a player over 2300 is Steadman.

This just seems like another argument for title de-valuation.

I agree; the changes made by FIDE have not prevented soft titles through Oceania Zonals at all but have simply reduced the number that can be given away each year. Maybe now that they have the CM title they should be awarding that for good zonal results instead.

With the IM title it is different because it is unusually difficult for Australian players to get that and so having one easier path to the IM title is not entirely a bad thing. But for FM since you can get it based on rating I don't see why relatively easy zonal titles are justified.

That said all those vying for the title are good players and in some cases giving them the title now may merely be bringing forward the inevitable.

Rincewind
12-05-2007, 10:56 AM
That said all those vying for the title are good players and in some cases giving them the title now may merely be bringing forward the inevitable.

Indeed, I don't think the devaluation of the FM title is the biggest problem in world chess. In this case, the four possible recipients in this case would certainly not devalue the title further...

Steadman would be worthy and I would be surprised if he hasn't already qualified and just has not bothered with the paperwork/admin fee in the past. Perhaps smoeone could confirm or deny.

Alex MDC is a good player and always seems to be a hard worker. He might still blossom into a stronger player but I think his progress will be steady from here. He should be able to get up to 2100 with a bit more work and so an FM title is not necessarily soft.

Nakauchi I don't know anything about but he seems to have come from nowhere and is doing very well. Hard to say whether the FM title would be soft or not, have to wait and see more results from him.

Morris is age 13 with a FIDE nearing 2000, with results at tournaments already in the bag it should be over 2000 on the next FIDE list. With that strength at that age which is still rapidly increasing, the sky is the limit and should have no problem attaining an FM in the next couple of years anyway, but his long term goal should be IM or higher. However, high school will present challenges for him so it won't be all plain sailing.

In short the patently soft FM titles of the past are certainly not an issue in this zonal. Perhaps it is easier to get FM title at an Oceania zonal than in other stronger tournaments but all the possible recipients this year would not devalue the title further.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 01:20 PM
I agree; the changes made by FIDE have not prevented soft titles through Oceania Zonals at all but have simply reduced the number that can be given away each year. Maybe now that they have the CM title they should be awarding that for good zonal results instead. The CM is 2200, so that should still be rating for that title.


With the IM title it is different because it is unusually difficult for Australian players to get that and so having one easier path to the IM title is not entirely a bad thing. But for FM since you can get it based on rating I don't see why relatively easy zonal titles are justified.Since the regs were changed, which Oceania players have gotten the IM title. I have no problem with Goldenberg getting the title direct as he is very close to 2400 anyways and will probably have a published rating over 2400 soon.


That said all those vying for the title are good players and in some cases giving them the title now may merely be bringing forward the inevitable.
Irrelevant what happens in the future. They are not even close to 2300 at this point in time and so to award the title to them now makes the title even softer.

Kevin Bonham
12-05-2007, 01:36 PM
Congratulations to all. :clap:


Since the regs were changed, which Oceania players have gotten the IM title.

I'm actually not sure who has got it via the zonal since the regs were changed - has there been anyone?


I have no problem with Goldenberg getting the title direct as he is very close to 2400 anyways and will probably have a published rating over 2400 soon.

Ditto here. Since returning a couple of years ago Igor's rating has been rapidly rising instead of declining and he has been matching it well with the higher-titled players. He was already Australia's highest-rated active FM.


He should be able to get up to 2100 with a bit more work and so an FM title is not necessarily soft.

Alex didn't get it this time but an FM title should be for those who are able to get up to 2300 with a bit more work - and normally, after they've got there.

I do hope the FM titles at such an early stage of their careers for Morris and Nakauchi spur them to become stronger players and aim for even higher but I wonder if it will be too much recognition too early. On his current rating Morris, while a strong player already and capable of great further improvement given his calculation skills, would be the fifth-lowest FIDE rated of the world's 4700+ FMs. Even with his coming ratings boost he would still be in the bottom 1%. Nakauchi isn't even FIDE-rated yet; does anyone know what his rating is likely to be?

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 02:33 PM
Is Oceania a full or sub zonal? Tried looking on fide website but couldnt see anything definitive.

Rincewind
12-05-2007, 03:35 PM
Alex didn't get it this time but an FM title should be for those who are able to get up to 2300 with a bit more work - and normally, after they've got there.

I think you automatically qualify for an FM title once you get a published rating of 2300. So if these other ways of getting FM titles mean anything then it is for prople who have ratings less than 2300 but could probably get there with a little more work. Perhaps 2100 is a bit of a low mark to use in my argument and 2200 would have been better.

pax
12-05-2007, 04:19 PM
And it looks like Wang and Smith both made their IM norms. Goldenberg too, but that is only relevant in that it shows that his is not a particularly soft title.

Denis_Jessop
12-05-2007, 04:24 PM
I agree; the changes made by FIDE have not prevented soft titles through Oceania Zonals at all but have simply reduced the number that can be given away each year. Maybe now that they have the CM title they should be awarding that for good zonal results instead.

With the IM title it is different because it is unusually difficult for Australian players to get that and so having one easier path to the IM title is not entirely a bad thing. But for FM since you can get it based on rating I don't see why relatively easy zonal titles are justified.

That said all those vying for the title are good players and in some cases giving them the title now may merely be bringing forward the inevitable.

The problem is not with the principle of granting of titles in Zonals but with the weakness of the Oceania Zone. FIDE seems to want the Oceania Zone and Gary Bekker, as its President, has been doing quite a bit to build up chess in the region. But the fact is that for the foreseeable future only Australia and New Zealand in the Zone will have any appreciable chess strength. This would seem to be a reason for merging the Oceania Zone with part, at least, of Asia. But this may mean that fewer Australians and New Zealanders would bother to compete as the Asians are much tougher competition.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
12-05-2007, 04:40 PM
Indeed, I don't think the devaluation of the FM title is the biggest problem in world chess. In this case, the four possible recipients in this case would certainly not devalue the title further...

Steadman would be worthy and I would be surprised if he hasn't already qualified and just has not bothered with the paperwork/admin fee in the past. Perhaps smoeone could confirm or deny.

Alex MDC is a good player and always seems to be a hard worker. He might still blossom into a stronger player but I think his progress will be steady from here. He should be able to get up to 2100 with a bit more work and so an FM title is not necessarily soft.

Nakauchi I don't know anything about but he seems to have come from nowhere and is doing very well. Hard to say whether the FM title would be soft or not, have to wait and see more results from him.

Morris is age 13 with a FIDE nearing 2000, with results at tournaments already in the bag it should be over 2000 on the next FIDE list. With that strength at that age which is still rapidly increasing, the sky is the limit and should have no problem attaining an FM in the next couple of years anyway, but his long term goal should be IM or higher. However, high school will present challenges for him so it won't be all plain sailing.

In short the patently soft FM titles of the past are certainly not an issue in this zonal. Perhaps it is easier to get FM title at an Oceania zonal than in other stronger tournaments but all the possible recipients this year would not devalue the title further.

It's interesting to contemplate that the rating of 2200 necessary to get an automatic CM title was, only a few years ago, the floor rating for FIDE.

I tend to think that regarding the "soft titles" available in the Oceania Zonal as a devaluation of FM titles generally is not a big deal now that only two are involved. The CM and FM titles both seem to be regarded by FIDE as an award that can be expected to be attained by a lot of players (cynically, one could say and generate a lot of money for FIDE) as, apart from the Zonals, they are achieved by attaining a rating (2200 and 2300, respectively) which is within the reach of quite a lot of talented players. Moreover, as you point out, if they are gained in a Zonal by a young improving player who doesn't yet have the required rating, it is quite likely that the player will soon achieve that rating in any event. Moreover, in the case of a young player, the grant of such a title might be a sufficient incentive to try for a "big one" ie, an IM.

DJ

PS I know a bit about Gene Nakauchi and I assume our Queensland friends do too. Suffice to say that he is a very keen youngster from the Gold coast whose diligence has resulted in great improvement recently. An FM title would be greatly appreciated by him and his family, I am sure.

Rincewind
12-05-2007, 04:54 PM
PS I know a bit about Gene Nakauchi and I assume our Queensland friends do too. Suffice to say that he is a very keen youngster from the Gold coast whose diligence has resulted in great improvement recently. An FM title would be greatly appreciated by him and his family, I am sure.

Cool. Always good to hear about more talented Australian juniors doing well.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 04:59 PM
PS I know a bit about Gene Nakauchi and I assume our Queensland friends do too. Suffice to say that he is a very keen youngster from the Gold coast whose diligence has resulted in great improvement recently. An FM title would be greatly appreciated by him and his family, I am sure.
I would assume that the 2300 automatic title is there for a reason.

As I pointed out earlier, Gene did not even draw with a player rated over 2300. He does not deserve the title.

I see once again someone has used the appreciation factor for awarding the title. How about the de-appreciation of the title for those who earnt it the hard way (got their fide rating to 2300).

I believe we have two posters on this board who got it the 2300 way (Jono and drug.)

No wonder organisers don't give free entries to FM's when 1800 or lower can get the title :hand:

Rincewind
12-05-2007, 05:06 PM
I would assume that the 2300 automatic title is there for a reason.

Yes, so that those who don't get it by some other means but are obviously strong enough don;t miss out.


As I pointed out earlier, Gene did not even draw with a player rated over 2300. He does not deserve the title.

That is not one of the requirements just an arbitrary factor selected by you almost at random. So your argument is without a point.


:drool:

The rest isn't worth responding to.

DoroPhil
12-05-2007, 05:24 PM
Why do people care so much about all this anyway?? Titles are meaningless, signify nothing and have no real benefits.

bergil
12-05-2007, 05:34 PM
Why do people care so much about all this anyway?? Titles are meaningless, signify nothing and have no real benefits.The IM title has.

DoroPhil
12-05-2007, 05:38 PM
The IM title has.

Not really. What would be the benefits of this title? Free entry - saving about 50 bucks?

pax
12-05-2007, 05:39 PM
No wonder organisers don't give free entries to FM's when 1800 or lower can get the title :hand:

That's not a fair swipe. Although Gene's performance may not have been 2300, it was certainly far higher than 1800. He finished ahead of 18 players rated higher than him, including IM Gary Lane.

bergil
12-05-2007, 05:47 PM
Not really. What would be the benefits of this title? Free entry - saving about 50 bucks?If you played at much as George Xie or Laura Moylan then around $300-$500 a year. :hmm:

Basil
12-05-2007, 05:52 PM
Not really. What would be the benefits of this title? Free entry - saving about 50 bucks?
- - Bergil's stated financial benefit
- - Recognition

Is there a downside to the title in your opinion?

DoroPhil
12-05-2007, 06:10 PM
If you played at much as George Xie or Laura Moylan then around $300-$500 a year. :hmm:

What if George Xie (for example) spend as much time on his education/ career building activities as he spends on his chess? Then he'll be making these $300-$500 in a day instead of a year.

DoroPhil
12-05-2007, 06:13 PM
- - Bergil's stated financial benefit
- - Recognition

Is there a downside to the title in your opinion?

I don't see an upside as of yet, so no real need to look for a downside either. Could you expand on your 'recognition' bit?

bergil
12-05-2007, 06:24 PM
What if George Xie (for example) spend as much time on his education/ career building activities as he spends on his chess? Then he'll be making these $300-$500 in a day instead of a year.What if I had a piece of string, how long would it be? :hmm:

Wapcaplet: Aah, come in, come in, Mr....Simpson. Aaah, welcome to Mousebat, Follicle, Goosecreature, Ampersand, Spong, Wapcaplet, Looseliver, Vendetta and Prang!
Mr. Simpson: Thank you.

Wapcaplet: Do sit down--my name's Wapcaplet, Adrian Wapcaplet...

Mr. Simpson: how'd'y'do.

Wapcaplet: Now, Mr. Simpson... Simpson, Simpson... French, is it?

Simpson: No.

Wapcaplet: Aah. Now, I understand you want us to advertise your washing powder.

Simpson: String.

Wapcaplet: String, washing powder, what's the difference. We can sell *anything*.

DoroPhil
12-05-2007, 06:26 PM
What if I had a piece of string, how long would it be? :hmm:



7?

Basil
12-05-2007, 06:52 PM
I don't see an upside as of yet
The upside is there and now indentified, whether you can 'see' it or not. The two things I listed are more than sufficient to be classified as an upside, regardless of whether you rate them.


so no real need to look for a downside either.
Disagree. As stated. So I ask again, is there a downside to the title?


Could you expand on your 'recognition' bit?
Yes, and I'd be glad to. Just clarify why you're asking. Is that you don't understand what I meant, or that you know exactly what I mean, but just wish to challenge the words once they appear, or is there another reason for asking me to clarify what is clearly a self-evident and rudimentary concept.

DoroPhil
12-05-2007, 07:00 PM
The upside is there and now indentified, whether you can 'see' it or not. The two things I listed are more than sufficient to be classified as an upside, regardless of whether you rate them.


Disagree. As stated. So I ask again, is there a downside to the title?


Yes, and I'd be glad to. Just clarify why you're asking. Is that you don't understand what I meant, or that you know exactly what I mean, but just wish to challenge the words once they appear, or is there another reason for asking me to clarify what is clearly a self-evident and rudimentary concept.

I am not sure why you decided to pretend to be stupid. 'Recognition' is not a rudimentary concept and there are a number of books written on the subject - I am sure you know that. If you would clarify which type of recognition you are talking about we might get somewhere.

As for the financial argument, please let me know in what way you disagree with the following statement:

"What if George Xie (for example) spend as much time on his education/ career building activities as he spends on his chess? Then he'll be making these $300-$500 in a day instead of a year."

Basil
12-05-2007, 07:51 PM
I am not sure why you decided to pretend to be stupid. 'Recognition' is not a rudimentary concept and there are a number of books written on the subject - I am sure you know that. If you would clarify which type of recognition you are talking about we might get somewhere.

As for the financial argument, please let me know in what way you disagree with the following statement:

"What if George Xie (for example) spend as much time on his education/ career building activities as he spends on his chess? Then he'll be making these $300-$500 in a day instead of a year."

I don't know about pretending to be stupid. I think your feigned intelligence is more the issue. And I'd be glad to highlight its deficiencies.

Recognition is indeed a rudimentary concept. If copious books have been written on the subject (as they are on most subjects) it doesn't necessarily follow that the concepts of recognition and reward have to be dragged into the darkest recesses of phD analysis at whim of an otherwise empty mind.

What you are trying to promote in a flimsy manner is the questioning of bronze medals, gold stars, team of the century, knighthoods, player of the year, Mother's Day and a raft of other recognition schemes that thankfully the mainstream world doesn't apply the Dorophil Dribble to. It's just recognition.

That said, in acknowledging your irrelevant pursuit that different forms of recognition exist, it would be more appropriate to acknowledge that the recipients are more likely to apply different values to the award. But none of that should prevent the title being awarded in recognition, ab initio.

As for your hopeless example of George Xie's parallel education opportunity, that falls foul of an entire text-book of fallacies of argument.

But just to knock it over simply, I'll say that George isn't standing back and weighing-up a financial outcome from the outset; viz whether to increase education effort or play chess as a mens to a financial end. This is what you are attempting to suggest and clearly it's banal dribble.

George has elected to play chess for no doubt myriad reasons and has been doing so for years, and paying his way. Bergil's simple and uncomplicated conclusion is that achieving a title, would result in a well-earned and deserved financial benefit.

Only a goose feigning intelligence could put up either defence - you managed both.

Denis_Jessop
12-05-2007, 08:12 PM
As I pointed out earlier, Gene did not even draw with a player rated over 2300. He does not deserve the title.

This is a bit like the argument that a rider who wins the Tour de France on GC without winning a stage is not really a winner. It doesn't wash.

DJ

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 08:53 PM
This is a bit like the argument that a rider who wins the Tour de France on GC without winning a stage is not really a winner. It doesn't wash.

DJ
GC is general classification ie as in first overall?

But in this example you are talking about first place, not mid pack ;)

Rincewind
12-05-2007, 09:07 PM
But in this example you are talking about first place, not mid pack ;)

9th and 10th out of 30 isn't mid-pack either. :doh:

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2007, 09:24 PM
As I pointed out earlier, Gene did not even draw with a player rated over 2300. He does not deserve the title.


This is a bit like the argument that a rider who wins the Tour de France on GC without winning a stage is not really a winner. It doesn't wash.

False analogy. ggrayggray was presumably pointing out that the FM title used to be awarded for a 2300 performance over 30 games, while Gene didn't manage to hold his own with anyone over 2300. Another QLD player achieved a very soft title a few years ago. It's the fault of the system not the players.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2007, 09:35 PM
With the IM title it is different because it is unusually difficult for Australian players to get that and so having one easier path to the IM title is not entirely a bad thing.

And the players who have obtained it via the zonal played like IMs in the tournaments concerned, e.g. Smerdon and Zhao. And now Puchen Wang is IM strength anyway, judging by this tournament and the NZ championship. So there seems little problem with soft IM titles.


But for FM since you can get it based on rating I don't see why relatively easy zonal titles are justified.

Me neither. Unlike the IM title winners, some FM title winners did NOT play like FMs in the tournament concerned.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 09:38 PM
Jono,

Are you playing tomorrow? If so, I will bring an extra special present for you :)

Kevin Bonham
12-05-2007, 09:43 PM
OK, might be useful to look at the results that got them there:

Morris:

loss Bjelobrk 2386
draw Ogada-Osir 1941 ACF
win Sikivou 1529 FCF
win Sharma 1864 FCF
loss Nakauchi 1703 ACF
win Ilic 2170
draw Kumar 2028
win Steadman 2273
loss Zhao 2476

TPR 2110

Nakauchi:

draw Ilic 2170
draw Illingworth 2006
draw Kumar 2028
win Fancy 2171
win Morris 1948
loss Smerdon 2453
loss Feldman 2304
win Fitzpatrick 2062
draw Mendes da Costa 2017

TPR 2167

and also Jule:

win Antrea 1589F
win Ram 1356F
loss Berezina 2258
win Lyons 1389F
draw Mararoa 1932
win Fairley 1757
win Harris 1630A
draw Smith 1742
draw Flores 1700P

TPR 1924

Some caveats can be attached - some of the players with local ratings would have much higher FIDE ratings if they had FIDE ratings at all, and most likely Jule was playing conservatively in the last two rounds. All up though these are very encouraging results from our strong junior players but not really automatic title material under normal circumstances!

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2007, 10:33 PM
Jono,

Are you playing tomorrow? If so, I will bring an extra special present for you :)

Yes, I plan to. You've got me intrigued now :)

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2007, 10:34 PM
OK, might be useful to look at the results that got them there:

Morris:
TPR 2110

Nakauchi:
TPR 2167

and also Jule:
TPR 1924

Certainly talented young players, but none of these is close to an FM-standard performance.

DoroPhil
12-05-2007, 10:44 PM
I don't know about pretending to be stupid. I think your feigned intelligence is more the issue. And I'd be glad to highlight its deficiencies.

Recognition is indeed a rudimentary concept. If copious books have been written on the subject (as they are on most subjects) it doesn't necessarily follow that the concepts of recognition and reward have to be dragged into the darkest recesses of phD analysis at whim of an otherwise empty mind.

What you are trying to promote in a flimsy manner is the questioning of bronze medals, gold stars, team of the century, knighthoods, player of the year, Mother's Day and a raft of other recognition schemes that thankfully the mainstream world doesn't apply the Dorophil Dribble to. It's just recognition.

That said, in acknowledging your irrelevant pursuit that different forms of recognition exist, it would be more appropriate to acknowledge that the recipients are more likely to apply different values to the award. But none of that should prevent the title being awarded in recognition, ab initio.

As for your hopeless example of George Xie's parallel education opportunity, that falls foul of an entire text-book of fallacies of argument.

But just to knock it over simply, I'll say that George isn't standing back and weighing-up a financial outcome from the outset; viz whether to increase education effort or play chess as a mens to a financial end. This is what you are attempting to suggest and clearly it's banal dribble.

George has elected to play chess for no doubt myriad reasons and has been doing so for years, and paying his way. Bergil's simple and uncomplicated conclusion is that achieving a title, would result in a well-earned and deserved financial benefit.

Only a goose feigning intelligence could put up either defence - you managed both.

You are stupid Howard. I am sorry

I am not sure what you were replying to. I did not say any of the things that you attribute to me ('What you are trying to promote...', 'This is what you are attempting to suggest...', etc).

You said 'recognition schemes'. Try looking more than one move ahead, Howard. What is being recognized here? And what does that achieve in the end? Come on, Howard - think!

Ah, never mind, you are stupid, I am sorry.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 10:44 PM
Certainly talented young players, but none of these is close to an FM-standard performance.
Jule is WIM, not FM.

Basil
12-05-2007, 11:15 PM
Back for more? No problem. But before I wade through your next wave of vague, rhetorical, tangential waffle, I would be remiss not to note that last time we saw you, you gave us a hopeless Xie analogy and an obfuscating dissertation on book clubs.


I am not sure what you were replying to.
I replied to your 'recognition & George Xie' dribble. That's very clear. However, I do believe you when you say you weren't sure what I was replying to as my entire post was on topic and it's evident how you struggle with straight lines..


I did not say any of the things that you attribute to me ('What you are trying to promote...', 'This is what you are attempting to suggest...', etc).
I didn't say you said them. I said you were promoting the ideas. More twaddle.


Try looking more than one move ahead, Howard. What is being recognized here?
I will - and said I would. But I wished to do you slowly on account of your being a serial prat, and that is why, I before I answered you, I wished to establish why you wanted me to elaborate.

Was it it that you didn't understand the concept of recognition or that you wished to fiddle with the semantics. It turned out to be the latter. Try and understand the foreplay and my enjoyment of it, and don't trip over your underpants in your eagerness for the main event.


And what does that achieve in the end?
I'd be happy to tell you, as I have said, but first we need you stop dribbling and drifting all over the shop. You're expanding the parameters with each post, before establishing first base in the prior one.

DoroPhil
12-05-2007, 11:19 PM
Back for more? No problem. But before I wade through your next wave of vague, rhetorical, tangential waffle, I would be remiss not to note that last time we saw you, you gave us a hopeless Xie analogy and an obfuscating dissertation on book clubs.


I replied to your 'recognition & George Xie' dribble. That's very clear. However, I do believe you when you say you weren't sure what I was replying to as my entire post was on topic and it's evident how you struggle with straight lines..


I didn't say you said them. I said you were promoting the ideas. More twaddle.


I will - and said I would. But I wished to do you slowly on account of your being a serial prat, and that is why, I before I answered you, I wished to establish why you wanted me to elaborate.

Was it it that you didn't understand the concept of recognition or that you wished to fiddle with the semantics. It turned out to be the latter. Try and understand the foreplay and my enjoyment of it, and don't trip over your underpants in your eagerness for the main event.


I'd be happy to tell you, as I have said, but first we need you stop dribbling and drifting all over the shop. You're expanding the parameters with each post, before establishing first base in the prior one.

But what about pink clouds then?

Rincewind
12-05-2007, 11:30 PM
Certainly talented young players, but none of these is close to an FM-standard performance.

[snip]

Basil
12-05-2007, 11:40 PM
OK, might be useful to look at the results that got them there:
Morris:
TPR 2110
Nakauchi:
TPR 2167
and also Jule:
TPR 1924

Certainly talented young players, but none of these is close to an FM-standard performance.

[snip]

Jono, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on what would constitute an FM performance. At first blush and with limited experience in these matters, I'd say the two boys qualify, at least.

Baz, That's poor show IMO, given the tenor of Jono's reply and subsequently the context of yours. Perhaps play the ball and not the man, or at least try and do both?

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2007, 11:49 PM
Jono, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on what would constitute an FM performance. At first blush and with limited experience in these matters, I'd say the two boys qualify, at least.

An FM title used to be awarded for 30 games at 2300 performance rating. None of these were anywhere near that.


Baz, That's poor show IMO, given the tenor of Jono's reply and subsequently the context of yours. Perhaps play the ball and not the man, or at least try and do both?

In my experience, Rincewind is incapable of rational argument, and it's also obvious that has little idea of master chess and has no interest in learning.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2007, 11:49 PM
Jule is WIM, not FM.
Yes, I know. My point still stands.

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 11:53 PM
Jono, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on what would constitute an FM performance.I'd be suggesting a 9 game performance rating of 2300+.
If one never performs at 2300+ ones rating cannoot attain 2300 the rating at which FM titles can now be claimed.

four four two
12-05-2007, 11:53 PM
On his current rating Morris, while a strong player already and capable of great further improvement given his calculation skills, would be the fifth-lowest FIDE rated of the world's 4700+ FMs.

Come again?:confused:

Is there really 4,700 FM's in the world?:hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2007, 11:54 PM
I'd be suggesting a 9 game performance rating of 2300+.
That's fair, Mr Gletsos.

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 11:54 PM
An FM title used to be awarded for 30 games at 2300 performance rating.Correct.

Basil
12-05-2007, 11:55 PM
An FM performance used to be 30 games at 2300 performance rating. None of these were anywhere near that.
Thanks. In reference to "used to be"; do you (or any others) know whether:

i) that benchmark was written down, or just generally accepted? and

ii) if it was mandated out at a known point, or the benchmark simply drifted south, or whether any benchmark disappeared? and for Jono only

iii) what would you broadly consider a workable contemporary standard if different from the standard you have cited.

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 11:56 PM
Thanks. In reference to "used to be"; do you (or any others) know whether:

i) that benchmark written down, or just generally accepted? and

ii) if it was mandated out at a known point, or the benchmark simply drifted south, or whether any benchmark disappeared? and for Jono only

iii) what would you broadly consider a workable contemporary standard if different from the standard you have cited.FIDE went for the money. ;)

Garvinator
13-05-2007, 12:02 AM
FIDE went for the money. ;)
Nothing new there :P

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 12:05 AM
Thanks. In reference to "used to be"; do you (or any others) know whether:

i) that benchmark written down, or just generally accepted? and

30 games @ 2300 was the rule when I got the FM.


ii) if it was mandated out at a known point, or the benchmark simply drifted south, or whether any benchmark disappeared? and for Jono only

Not sure. I think Bill Gletsos is right about the motivation ;)

My clubmate Arinbjörn Gudmundsson, formerly of Iceland and an opponent of Bobby Fischer, has lamented the general deflation of titles. In his day, only 2 GM titles were awarded per year.


iii) what would you broadly consider a workable contemporary standard if different from the standard you have cited.

I think the old standard was a fair one. For a zonal, a performance of 2300 would be fair.

four four two
13-05-2007, 12:11 AM
My clubmate Arinbjörn Gudmundsson, formerly of Iceland and an opponent of Bobby Fischer, has lamented the general deflation of titles. In his day, only 2 GM titles were awarded per year.


Which was equally as silly as the amount of FM titles awarded today.
There was clearly more than 2 players a year who deserved the GM title in the late 60's/early70's.

Bill Gletsos
13-05-2007, 12:13 AM
The FM title was introduced back in 1978.

Back then the requirement were either:
1) 2 or more norm results at a performance of 2350+ coveroing 24 games and a rating of at least 2250 on the current FIDE rating list.
2) 1st place in the World Championship for U17.
3) one 2350+ performance in a FIDE tournament in the cycle for the world Championship of at least 13 games.

No WFM title existed at this time.

In 1985 the title could be gained by:
1) acheiving a rating of 2300 based on 24 games,
2) placing 1st in the World Championship for U16
3) a performance rating of 2300 in a zonal of not less than 13 games

At that time the WFM had similar conditions but was based on a figure of 2050.

At the General Assembly in 1988 they changed the requirements such that 2) above now included the U14, U12 and U10 age titles and 3) was replaced by simply scoring 50% in a zonal.

The WFM rating requirement was lifted to 2100 at this time.

Desmond
13-05-2007, 12:13 AM
Is there anything to stop a player from (say) Russia competing in the Oceania zonal to hunt for the title/s?

Bill Gletsos
13-05-2007, 12:36 AM
Is there anything to stop a player from (say) Russia competing in the Oceania zonal to hunt for the title/s?They have to be listed on the FIDE rating list as being in one of the Federations that comprise the Oceania Zone.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 12:41 AM
There was clearly more than 2 players a year who deserved the GM title in the late 60's/early70's.
Rather, this meant that the GM was a much more prestigious title back then.

Kevin Bonham
13-05-2007, 12:44 AM
Come again?:confused:

Is there really 4,700 FM's in the world?:hmm:

These are the stats for January 2007 including inactive players:

1029 GMs (936 "active")
2695 IMs
4708 FMs
181 WGMs
366 WIMs
570 WFMs

(Note that here an IM is not also counted as an FM, for instance. The 4708 FMs are all FMs who have never obtained a higher title.)

four four two
13-05-2007, 12:45 AM
Rather, this meant that the GM was a much more prestigious title back then.

It was also restricted for political reasons which had nothing to do with chess ability.

four four two
13-05-2007, 12:52 AM
These are the stats for January 2007 including inactive players:

1029 GMs (936 "active")
2695 IMs
4708 FMs
181 WGMs
366 WIMs
570 WFMs

(Note that here an IM is not also counted as an FM, for instance. The 4708 FMs are all FMs who have never obtained a higher title.)

Well with that evidence no one in their right mind can argue that the FM title hasnt been significantly devalued in the last 20 years. Even with the greater depth of chess strength worldwide that doesnt explain the mass growth of FM titles.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 12:59 AM
It was also restricted for political reasons which had nothing to do with chess ability.
Not sure what you mean. Certainly a common way people obtained the GM title was qualifying for the Candidates. Since the winner of this would challenge the World Champ, the new GM was part of the world's elite.

There were players in the Soviet Union that were probably of GM strength but never had the opportunity to obtain the title, if that's what you mean.

four four two
13-05-2007, 01:16 AM
Not sure what you mean. Certainly a common way people obtained the GM title was qualifying for the Candidates. Since the winner of this would challenge the World Champ, the new GM was part of the world's elite.

There were players in the Soviet Union that were probably of GM strength but never had the opportunity to obtain the title, if that's what you mean.

If we were to use this criteria today there would be less than 50 GM's.:whistle:

One of the reasons the GM title was so resticted was to maintain the soviet hegemony in relation to titled players. There were a fair amount of non soviet players in the 60's who were equal in playing strength to a 2550 player today who didnt have a GM title. By not having the GM title their careers were resticted by not receiving invitations to top tournaments. Their wasnt that many top level open tournaments then so the benefits of having easy access to ivitations to top tournaments cant be overlooked.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 01:45 AM
If we were to use this criteria today there would be less than 50 GM's.:whistle:

Which might be a good thing. Or we need a Great Grandmaster title for top-50.


One of the reasons the GM title was so resticted was to maintain the soviet hegemony in relation to titled players.

Is there any proof of this? If anything, the restriction understated the Soviet hegemony of strength considering GM-strength players like Nezhmetdinov, Yukhtman and Ilivitsky who never had the chance to play for a GM title.


There were a fair amount of non soviet players in the 60's who were equal in playing strength to a 2550 player today who didnt have a GM title.

True. And the problem is that today's titles are too easy, not that yesteryear's are too hard.


By not having the GM title their careers were resticted by not receiving invitations to top tournaments.

They didn't get invited because they were not in the top.

Nowadays many GMs are dropping out of chess because the GM title is no longer a guarantee of receiving top invitations.

Bill Gletsos
13-05-2007, 01:59 AM
In 1977 of active players the highest rating was 2690 (Fischer was 2780 but inactive) and to be in the top 100 you needed to be rated 2495 or higher. 12 players were rated 2600 or higher. The average rating of the top 20 was 2613, the average of the top 50 2577 and the average of the top 100 2535.

By 2000 the highest rated was 2851 and to be in the top 100 you needed to be 2595 or higher. 89 players were rated 2600 or higher which included 11 rated 2700 or higher. The average rating of the top 20 was 2716, the average of the top 50 2675 and the average of the top 100 2643.

Garrett
13-05-2007, 07:17 AM
Well I have just read through the several pages of comments which have been added since I left work yesterday at 2pm.

It's an interesting debate. If someone were to run a poll I would vote that IMHO FIDE titles have been devalued across the board.

Notwithstanding, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to all the new title holders (and potential title holders), and especially Gene and Alexandra, whom I know and are nice kids. :clap:

cheers
George.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 09:02 AM
OK, might be useful to look at the results that got them there:
What about the possible IM awardees Wang and Goldenberg?

pax
13-05-2007, 09:59 AM
What about the possible IM awardees Wang and Goldenberg?

Wang PR 2490, Goldenberg PR 2479.

Incidentally also Bob Smith 2482.

pax
13-05-2007, 10:26 AM
And Zhao 2541, inching him another 6 points or so closer to the magic 2500.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 10:45 AM
Wang PR 2490, Goldenberg PR 2479.

Incidentally also Bob Smith 2482.
Thanx. Clearly any of these would be deserving of the IM title.

Brian_Jones
13-05-2007, 10:46 AM
FIDE went for the money. ;)

A bit cynical Bill.

FIDE has succesfully popularised chess around the (non-western) world.

For some time now (OK since 1988) they have awarded FM titles to World underage winners as well as Continental underage winners and Arab underage winners.

The money is just peanuts.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 10:46 AM
And Zhao 2541, inching him another 6 points or so closer to the magic 2500.
Magic? Why?

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 10:51 AM
It's an interesting debate. If someone were to run a poll I would vote that IMHO FIDE titles have been devalued across the board..

Indeed so. And the performance for the WIM title was significantly lower than even the performances for the devalued FM title. Yet some misguided organizers confer greater privileges on WIMs than FMs.


Notwithstanding, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to all the new title holders (and potential title holders), and especially Gene and Alexandra, whom I know and are nice kids. :clap:

Their niceness was not in question.