Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

[Larry Bevand]

An interesting article by Jack Peters on the FIDE site:

http://www.fide.com/component/conten...97-glut-of-gms

[Jason Lohner]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

An interesting article by Jack Peters on the FIDE site:

http://www.fide.com/component/conten...97-glut-of-gms

Personally IMHO, If the player isn't in the top 100 (or has reached that height at one point in his life) they shouldn't gain the title. That would solve the problem. Then a GM would really be a GRAND master :).

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

There is also a glut of highly-ranked pro poker players, but anyone who wins a World Series of Poker event gets a gold-and-diamond bracelet. The number of bracelets you've won, more than anything else, determines how elite a poker player you are.

How about bringing this practice into chess, in that any person who wins a Brilliancy Prize at a super-GM tournament with some prescribed minimum ranking gets a valuable bracelet, perhaps worth as much as the top prize for winning the tournament? This might also serve to reduce the number of non-fighting draws in such tournaments. The number of these bracelets won will mark the true elite among GMs.

Why are brilliancy prizes so untalked about? They are the true mark of genius and creativity in chess!

[Hikaru Nakamura]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

The easiest way to make the title actually mean something is to make the requirements more stringent such as 4 norms and a rating of 2600 for instance. Unfortunately there are several countries (they shall go nameless) which I have had the (mis)fortune of playing in where I have seen people buy titles. Besides, with the current rating inflation, the system is outdated anyway. Not to put a damper on everything, but brilliancy prizes mean far less than they used to as most of the "brilliancies" are simply novelties not a new concept or idea. If people want to see real novel concepts then I suggest reading Chess On The Edge. :)

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

...How about bringing this practice into chess, in that any person who wins a Brilliancy Prize at a super-GM tournament with some prescribed minimum ranking gets a valuable bracelet, perhaps worth as much as the top prize for winning the tournament? This might also serve to reduce the number of non-fighting draws in such tournaments. The number of these bracelets won will mark the true elite among GMs. ...

Why just copy from poker? Plus, as already noted, the brilliancy idea might be hard to implement. Here's my idea:

1. Each GM who wins a 'major' tournament would receive, in addition to prize money, a battery pack, a supporting harness and a neon arrow, say about 2 feet in length, with neon wording inside.

2. The arrow would be supported by the harness and would be placed above and pointing down at the GM's head.

3. The wording inside the arrow would say nifty things like: "The Real Deal", "The Real McCoy", "Here's the Beef", "Yabba, Yabba", "IQ = 300", etc.

4. A successful GM would accumulate arrows and could wear as many as he could physically support at tournaments as well as out in public.

I'm still working on this idea. For example, will neon lights run on batteries (direct current)? If not, then rather than a battery pack a successful GM might need, say, a 5,000 watt gas generator.



Another great idea from what remains of Peter McKillop's grey matter

[Eric Hansen]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

ok I agree it's less meaningful these days. But wait till I get GM first then change the requirements :)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

Go for it Eric !

Bob

[David Ottosen]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

An interesting article by Jack Peters on the FIDE site:

http://www.fide.com/component/conten...97-glut-of-gms

I believed that the best way to handle it is to include the rating requirement, the norms, and a certain number of GM scalps. If you don't have 10 lifetime GM scalps, maybe you don't deserve to be a GM.

The flip side would be if you were a GM, and gave up your scalp at an excessive rate (say more than 10 times per 100 games vs non GMs), you are de-titled.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

I believed that the best way to handle it is to include the rating requirement, the norms, and a certain number of GM scalps. If you don't have 10 lifetime GM scalps, maybe you don't deserve to be a GM.

The flip side would be if you were a GM, and gave up your scalp at an excessive rate (say more than 10 times per 100 games vs non GMs), you are de-titled.

Eureka, David, you've solved the problem and don't even realize it!

Change the system so that if you're a GM and you lose a match, YOU ACTUALLY GET SCALPED! You're opponent literally takes your scalp!

Some GMs might play until losing one game... but they'd probably retire at that point.

The elite GMs will be the ones with a dozen or more GM scalps hanging from their belt.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

Not to put a damper on everything, but brilliancy prizes mean far less than they used to as most of the "brilliancies" are simply novelties not a new concept or idea.

I don't know what passes for brilliancy prizes nowadays, but if the brilliancy prizes really meant something, like a $100,000 bracelet, then the voting would be a lot more stringent and maybe some tournaments would award no brilliancy prizes at all. Make the brilliancy prizes the true measure of the chess elite, and that means tighten the definition of "brilliancy". Make them YEARN it, and make them EARN it!

I remember in the late '80s, early '90s, the major tournament they have every year in Spain, I think it's called Linares, the organizer was very recognizant of the value of brilliancies and awarded I think a large cash award for the winner of the brilliancy prize. Does that still happen? But I think instead of cash, a bracelet or maybe a ring is a much better idea.

[David Ottosen]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

Eureka, David, you've solved the problem and don't even realize it!

Change the system so that if you're a GM and you lose a match, YOU ACTUALLY GET SCALPED! You're opponent literally takes your scalp!

Some GMs might play until losing one game... but they'd probably retire at that point.

The elite GMs will be the ones with a dozen or more GM scalps hanging from their belt.

In theory, it also places more monetary value on the GM title - if you can't get the title without playing GMs, prospective GMs better be prepared to offer them something back ($) to give them some reason to play you.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

I don't know what passes for brilliancy prizes nowadays, but if the brilliancy prizes really meant something, like a $100,000 bracelet, then the voting would be a lot more stringent and maybe some tournaments would award no brilliancy prizes at all. Make the brilliancy prizes the true measure of the chess elite, and that means tighten the definition of "brilliancy". Make them YEARN it, and make them EARN it!

I remember in the late '80s, early '90s, the major tournament they have every year in Spain, I think it's called Linares, the organizer was very recognizant of the value of brilliancies and awarded I think a large cash award for the winner of the brilliancy prize. Does that still happen? But I think instead of cash, a bracelet or maybe a ring is a much better idea.

Surely, you're not serious.

1) The value of a WSOP bracelet pales in comparison to the value of the cash awarded for winning the tournament. It's symbolic, not unlike the framed certificate awarded to the handsome young man on the right.
2) How are professionals supposed to survive? By trading their bracelets for food and shelter?
3) A $100,000 bracelet? What!?!?!? Are you under the fallacious impression that WSOP bracelets cost more than a few thousand dollars?

Besides that, there's also the obvious problem that most straight males wouldn't be caught dead in a sparkly $100,000 bracelet.

I agree with you about the brilliancy prize idea, but this bracelet idea is ludicrous, as if the name of this stylish young chap's science fair project.

[Hikaru Nakamura]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

So Ben, I take it that if I show up to floor hockey with a $100,000 bracelet, you'll kill me then or hit me in the head with your stick, eh? :)

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Curbing the glut of grandmasters...

Surely, you're not serious.

1) The value of a WSOP bracelet pales in comparison to the value of the cash awarded for winning the tournament. It's symbolic, not unlike the framed certificate awarded to the handsome young man on the right.
2) How are professionals supposed to survive? By trading their bracelets for food and shelter?
3) A $100,000 bracelet? What!?!?!? Are you under the fallacious impression that WSOP bracelets cost more than a few thousand dollars?

Besides that, there's also the obvious problem that most straight males wouldn't be caught dead in a sparkly $100,000 bracelet.

I agree with you about the brilliancy prize idea, but this bracelet idea is ludicrous, as if the name of this stylish young chap's science fair project.

I have to admit, I don't know the appraisal value of a WSOP bracelet, although I know it has some amount of precious and semi-precious content. But you use the word "cost". Maybe in cost, it does pale in value comparison to the cash, but you can't go out and BUY a WSOP bracelet for any amount of money unless a bracelet winner sells it him or herself (and I haven't heard of that happening, yet, but with the recession dragging on, who knows?).

I'm assuming (again, I don't know) that the WSOP would change the design of the bracelets from year to year. Wouldn't the rarity of them give them a much higher appraisal value? Like Super Bowl rings, although again, I have no idea what the raw appraisal value of any particular Super Bowl ring is either. But I'm sure it goes way beyond their actual cost.

(and BTW, what is the cost of a $10,000 bill? Are you under the fallacious impression that cost is all that matters?)

The way the pro players talk, it seems they all think the prize money is great, but it's the bracelet they crave. Amateurs may feel different, but the pros are used to winning large cash prizes and they crave something that distinguishes them for all to see. Even if they don't wear them, the point is, they HAVE them and anyone who follows poker at all KNOWS every player who has more than two or three of them. Have you seen the commercial for PokerStars (I think) where Howard Lederer (former pro chess player and Canadian to boot) is seated at a table wearing his 2 bracelets, and the girl next to him says how hard it must have been to win them, and Howard starts recounting the hand that won one of them, when all of a sudden everyone hears a loud jingling of metal. It's Erik Seidel at another table, he's dealing cards wearing his 6 or 7 or 8 WSOP bracelets. Erik says "Sorry" to Howard, and resumes shuffling. Howard starts going back to his story, but the girl and everyone else leaves the table and goes to Erik's table! SHIP IT HOLLA!

Imagine the intimidation factor when every time your opponent moves his pieces against you, he flashes his 5 or 6 or more GM brilliancy prize bracelets? I don't care if he's gay, straight, or into donkeys, if he's for using chess psychology, he's going to wear those bracelets every tournament he enters!

Oh, and lol, regarding "this bracelet idea is ludicrous"... no, man, it's LUDACRIS!

http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/P...acris-ps01.jpg