Question for the Ratings Auditor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Question for the Ratings Auditor

    Hi,

    This is a pretty funny thread...
    I am not an IM but I also thinking that anyone outside of the elite (IM & GM) has no business trying to make money out of chess. Although if they do, great for them, kuddos! Chess is a hobby & game, awesome at that too.
    Maybe I am just elitist
    Having said that... NM title here I come!
    (looking forward to posting the CFC certificate on my fridge)
    Or at least something to look forward to

    Alex F.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Question for the Ratings Auditor

      Alex, is the rumour true that you are organizing a 7 game match between Bindi Cheng and Gary Ruben this fall ? Maybe raise some money for charity ? Heard something about it on the Colbert Report.
      Last edited by Duncan Smith; Saturday, 20th August, 2011, 07:50 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Question for the Ratings Auditor

        Originally posted by Bindi Cheng View Post
        As I've said, I don't mean to offend anyone in pursuit of a nationally recognized title, I just think if you're going to aim for that, why not slightly higher and be internationally recognized
        I've heard from a few strong players who don't understand class players. You're talented, able to focus and worked hard. Based on your growth and understanding of chess, it may seem easy for you that anyone can reach 2200. But most players who play alot and study hard will peak at 2000 or 1800 or lower. There may be chess concepts that they just can't get, or have trouble making decisions, handling time, mental slips, blind spots, emotionally overwhelmed, or ?. That that will be their lifetime peak may be difficult for masters to comprehend.

        The NM and class tiles gives players recognition for achieving a goal. Some may be happy to sit with Category 2, 1 or NM title, some may use it as a stepping stone to their goal of becoming an International Master. The title is a celebration of all the tournaments they have played in and may encourage them to play in more. Being a tournament player already makes them stronger than most players who know little more than the moves and the title may impress their family and casual-playing friends.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Question for the Ratings Auditor

          Deleted by me...
          Last edited by Gary Ruben; Saturday, 20th August, 2011, 09:35 PM. Reason: Someone tell Smith he's not my new best friend...
          Gary Ruben
          CC - IA and SIM

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Question for the Ratings Auditor

            Originally posted by Bindi Cheng View Post
            I don't think FM is as accepted as you may think, for one ICC doesn't even offer free membership to them :(
            As I've said, I don't mean to offend anyone in pursuit of a nationally recognized title, I just think if you're going to aim for that, why not slightly higher and be internationally recognized
            IM & GM doesn't usually get you into my tournaments free either. Doesn't mean they are not worthwhile titles :-)

            But as to aiming higher - I could say the same thing about people who stop at finishing high school, community college programs, BA, BSc, MA, MSc. Why stop there? Because, either due to inclination or ability, that's as far as it got and it's an important marker to them.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Question for the Ratings Auditor

              As I understand , his (Bindi Cheng) and partially mine concern is that the National Master title is devalued with a 2200 rating. If it would be the new title, I preferred 2400. It should approach the FIDE IM or at least a strong FM (~2350). However, it has already a history with 2200.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Question for the Ratings Auditor

                Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
                As I understand , his (Bindi Cheng) and partially mine concern is that the National Master title is devalued with a 2200 rating. If it would be the new title, I preferred 2400. It should approach the FIDE IM or at least a strong FM (~2350). However, it has already a history with 2200.
                I've always understood it to be 2200. Certainly that is what the USCF does. And why would you have a title that duplicates more or less what you would be given by FIDE? (well maybe the CFC would save on FIDE costs for titles).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Question for the Ratings Auditor

                  Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
                  And why would you have a title that duplicates more or less what you would be given by FIDE?
                  To rise a standard. The title should be more exceptional. Let say only top50 should have it :)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Question for the Ratings Auditor

                    I like the idea of accomplishments or norms being made. FIDE already has the FM and CM titles. There shouldn't be any problem with IM's, GM's and FM's being awarded a national master title. Others should have to make qualifications which are a step below, and not far below, the qualifications for an international title.

                    There isn't anything wrong with making the qualifications hard. Hard is what makes the titles worth something. Still, the chance of obtaining the title has to be realistic.
                    Gary Ruben
                    CC - IA and SIM

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X