Random Question re: Grandmasters

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

  • Random Question re: Grandmasters

    This occurred to me after noticing that IM Eric Hansen (2472) was stronger than his opponent GM Handzar Odeev (2397)....

    Is it possible to lose a title of Grandmaster (or for that matter, IM or FM) once it has been achieved? From my quick Wikipedia search, I think the answer is IM/GM are lifetime titles whereas FM is not. Is this correct?

    It seems strange to think one could have Grandmasters in competitive or amateur chess, who, because of natural declines, may be shadows of their former strength.

  • #2
    Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

    Originally posted by Matthew Scott View Post
    the answer is IM/GM are lifetime titles whereas FM is not.
    GM/IM/FM - lifetime. Rven lower (CM etc) and women too.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

      I suppose in theory the title could be stripped by the General Assembly... I'm not sure this has ever been done except for the odd fraudulently obtained titles.
      Christopher Mallon
      FIDE Arbiter

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

        There are players who are awarded the titles that are clearly weaker than the titles suggest. IMHO, a player should have to keep up certain standards over a period of time in order to maintain a title.
        No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

          Originally posted by Jordan S. Berson View Post
          There are players who are awarded the titles that are clearly weaker than the titles suggest. IMHO, a player should have to keep up certain standards over a period of time in order to maintain a title.
          So if Kortchnoi, a former challenger for the world championship, has his rating fall below 2500, you would favor taking his title of GM away. (currently 2519) And to be consistent, any player who becomes inactive, you would take their title away too.

          The whole point of titles is that they are for life and are intended as a marker for a level of achievement over their playing career. If all you care about is a person's current strength, just look at their rating and ignore the title. It's fine if you think lifetime titles are bogus, but don't deprive the rest of us our little pleasures.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

            Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
            So if Kortchnoi, a former challenger for the world championship, has his rating fall below 2500, you would favor taking his title of GM away. (currently 2519) And to be consistent, any player who becomes inactive, you would take their title away too.

            The whole point of titles is that they are for life and are intended as a marker for a level of achievement over their playing career. If all you care about is a person's current strength, just look at their rating and ignore the title. It's fine if you think lifetime titles are bogus, but don't deprive the rest of us our little pleasures.
            I have mixed feelings on this. I mean, a person who is elected to public office would no longer hold a title once removed from office, but would still be entitled to certain honorifics... e.g., "The Right Honourable"...

            If the purpose of titles is merely to indicate that, at one point in time, a player was of a given strength, then I suppose having them as they are makes sense. If they are supposed to reflect current affairs, then it really does not make much sense. I think a lay person would assume a Grandmaster is currently of a given skill level, though, I admit it is debatable whether chess policy should be dictated by lay people or knowledgeable folk.

            It would certainly be open for a governing body to provide some kind of honorific for former GMs or IMs in place of maintaining their current titles, if that was the direction one wished to go.

            Just some food for thought.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

              Originally posted by Matthew Scott View Post

              It would certainly be open for a governing body to provide some kind of honorific for former GMs or IMs in place of maintaining their current titles, if that was the direction one wished to go.

              Just some food for thought.
              We already have an honorific title for such people. It's called "GM". And the title that goes with a person's current strength is "2652" or some such until it changes to some other number.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

                Originally posted by Matthew Scott View Post
                I have mixed feelings on this. I mean, a person who is elected to public office would no longer hold a title once removed from office, but would still be entitled to certain honorifics... e.g., "The Right Honourable"...

                If the purpose of titles is merely to indicate that, at one point in time, a player was of a given strength, then I suppose having them as they are makes sense. If they are supposed to reflect current affairs, then it really does not make much sense. I think a lay person would assume a Grandmaster is currently of a given skill level, though, I admit it is debatable whether chess policy should be dictated by lay people or knowledgeable folk.

                It would certainly be open for a governing body to provide some kind of honorific for former GMs or IMs in place of maintaining their current titles, if that was the direction one wished to go.

                Just some food for thought.
                The entire purpose of having a title is that this is a certificate of achievement which is there forever, unlike rating points that come and go.

                There are GMs who are rated below 2300 and still continue to play well past retirement age and I think that this is great.
                Their title should be there forever.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

                  Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
                  So if Kortchnoi, a former challenger for the world championship, has his rating fall below 2500, you would favor taking his title of GM away. (currently 2519) And to be consistent, any player who becomes inactive, you would take their title away too.
                  Roger,

                  Not sure which post you were reading, but mine said "IMHO, a player should have to keep up certain standards over a period of time in order to maintain a title." There's no mention of rating in my post, or anything about inactive players.

                  If you want to have a discussion about my opinions, then please don't start by making assumptions and putting words in my mouth... or keyboard for that matter.

                  Jordan
                  No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

                    We could start with "the title of Grandmaster should never have been based on ratings" ...

                    Really, you should get the GM title for making the final-8 of the World Championship, and that's about it. IMHO. Then there wouldn't be 1100+ of them. What we currently call a GM could be a Senior Master (as in correspondence) or perhaps a High Master.
                    Christopher Mallon
                    FIDE Arbiter

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

                      Originally posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
                      We could start with "the title of Grandmaster should never have been based on ratings" ...

                      Really, you should get the GM title for making the final-8 of the World Championship, and that's about it. IMHO. Then there wouldn't be 1100+ of them. What we currently call a GM could be a Senior Master (as in correspondence) or perhaps a High Master.
                      Or perhaps an "apparent Master" ... ;)
                      ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

                        I'm sure we could make good use of a thesaurus. It'll never happen though - imagine the lawsuits if you tried even just changing the name of a thousand people's GM titles.
                        Christopher Mallon
                        FIDE Arbiter

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

                          Originally posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
                          I'm sure we could make good use of a thesaurus. It'll never happen though - imagine the lawsuits if you tried even just changing the name of a thousand people's GM titles.
                          I hadn't realized there were more than 1100 GMs now. No wonder people have been muttering about a "SuperGM" title (I am sure I have seen that phrase already used or over-used).

                          Makes me wonder about GO and for that matter Judo, where the very top titles are almost impossible to attain and are therefore reserved for the very elite.

                          At this moment, it might be hard to say that there is much difference between (say): Anand, Carlsen, Kramnik and a few more in the 'Top 10' - not to mention Kasparov.
                          ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

                            Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
                            I hadn't realized there were more than 1100 GMs now.
                            1100 GM's ! So many, hardly any value in that!

                            Whereas, the CFC's National Candidate Master (NCM) title has some real value!
                            Only 12 in existence. :D:D;)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Random Question re: Grandmasters

                              Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
                              I hadn't realized there were more than 1100 GMs now. No wonder people have been muttering about a "SuperGM" title (I am sure I have seen that phrase already used or over-used).
                              The GM's are like popcorn. There will always be more.
                              Gary Ruben
                              CC - IA and SIM

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X