https://en.chessbase.com/post/grandmasters-two-a-penny What do you think?
Too many grandmasters?
Collapse
X
-
Certainly if they were given a written test of knowledge, all the thousands of GMs have reached a high level of chess knowledge and skill. But who are they?
Back when I was young, circa 1970, there were only 100 Grandmasters and i was likely to recognize their names, having seen a game of theirs. Today, I couldn't tell you who the 100 Grandmasters are in the US. The top 20 or so play frequently in online events and are well known. But by 50th, I don't know. In addition to the GM title for life, there could be an Active Grandmaster title only for the top 100 active players. The bottom of the list would have a couple of changes each month. But not to be confused with playing an Active time control.
-
Originally posted by Hans Jung View Posthttps://en.chessbase.com/post/grandmasters-two-a-penny What do you think?
For integrity of the game? Maybe that is what Nigel Short is referring to when he says GMs are "two a penny".
A SuperGM (SGM) category could be added .... but it still hides the fact that these levels are still FAR below the playing levels of the top .... 500? chess engines.
You have to go WAY down the list of current chess engines to find one that Carlson would have a chance against.
Some would argue that chess engines have access to memory and processing speed that humans simply can't match. True enough, but it all masks the real truth, which is that playing chess at the true top levels of the game is impossible for humans.
Even the mighty Carlson is a mistake-prone patzer, in truth.
To me, what we have too much of is VENERATION for the human GMs. Yes, they do the best they can and have achieved levels the rest of us can not approach... maybe the new name we need is HumanGM.
Yes, I like that. It hints at the limitations of the human players.
Comment
-
My idea - create a new title for the top 100 rated active players in the world at the end of each month. "Active" would denote a minimum number of games played against "strong" players in the last year (or other designated time period). You could drop off the list and/or work your way back on to it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post
Too many Grandmasters .... for WHAT exactly?
For integrity of the game? Maybe that is what Nigel Short is referring to when he says GMs are "two a penny".
A SuperGM (SGM) category could be added .... but it still hides the fact that these levels are still FAR below the playing levels of the top .... 500? chess engines.
You have to go WAY down the list of current chess engines to find one that Carlson would have a chance against.
Some would argue that chess engines have access to memory and processing speed that humans simply can't match. True enough, but it all masks the real truth, which is that playing chess at the true top levels of the game is impossible for humans.
Even the mighty Carlson is a mistake-prone patzer, in truth.
To me, what we have too much of is VENERATION for the human GMs. Yes, they do the best they can and have achieved levels the rest of us can not approach... maybe the new name we need is HumanGM.
Yes, I like that. It hints at the limitations of the human players.
Comment
-
Honestly, not funny NIGEL SHORT. Your term 'super intergalactic grandmasters' makes light of GM title that is very hard to achieve for many players. The GM title is two a penny??? Are you saying, Nigel, that being a Grandmaster is not valuable???
Diminishing the title of Grandmaster is like saying "Hey, your Family Physician role is not valuable.Why aren't you a Surgeon?"
If it's so easy and not so valuable, why doesn't Nigel aim for Super Intergalactic Grandmaster himself???
Comment
Comment