ChessPub Forum - Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark...

(UTC)

ChessPub Forum › General › General Chess › Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark...

(Moderators: trw, proustiskeen, RoleyPoley)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Page Index Toggle

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Topic Tools

Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies)

Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... (Read 21749 times)

Willempie God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing .com! Posts: 4312 Location: Holland Joined: 01/07/05	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #22 - 07/10/06 at 14:38:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	Keano wrote on 07/10/06 at 13:52:29: Quote: You're confusing American chess with world chess. Fischer gave a big boost the to the latter. The former, at least in Germany and points East, was already going strong. I think you mean the other way around! In any case I dont think I need to argue this one - Fischer phenomenon sparked interest and chess boom worldwide Only in the west and even there I think it is often overestimated. Ie check how popular the Capablanca memorials in Cuba were or how strong the average Moscow championship was. Even Hoogovens was already very popular

	If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
	IP Logged

Keano God Member Offline Money doesn't talk, it swears. Posts: 2928 Location: Toulouse Joined: 05/25/05 Gender:	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #21 - 07/10/06 at 13:52:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: You're confusing American chess with world chess. Fischer gave a big boost the to the latter. The former, at least in Germany and points East, was already going strong. I think you mean the other way around! In any case I dont think I need to argue this one - Fischer phenomenon sparked interest and chess boom worldwide


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #20 - 07/10/06 at 12:42:55	Post Tools	Print Post
	Keano wrote on 07/05/06 at 07:31:33: Not necessarily true Markovich - in 1973 chess was just getting kick started after the Fischer phenomenon. It is not a matter of numerics, you cannot say we can only have a certain amount of GrandMasters - the whole point is to have attained the level of chess mastery. Ask any of the GM´s young and old and they will tell you the title of GM is still very special. You're confusing American chess with world chess. Fischer gave a big boost the to the latter. The former, at least in Germany and points East, was already going strong.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Keano God Member Offline Money doesn't talk, it swears. Posts: 2928 Location: Toulouse Joined: 05/25/05 Gender:	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #19 - 07/05/06 at 16:01:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	well it quite blatantly means the first - I think what you are looking for is a title like "SuperMan" never mind Super GM


	IP Logged

TRIAD YaBB Newbies Offline Whats up Doc? Posts: 16 Joined: 06/09/06	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #18 - 07/05/06 at 15:47:46	Post Tools	Print Post
	What does the the title of grandmaster mean? What does it define? Obvious question with maybe some not so obvious answers. If the title of grandmaster simply means a profound understanding of the game than there is no reason to change the current system. If you take the term of grandmaster to mean a profound understanding of the game which is demonstrated by beating the very best in the world time and time again then the current system must be changed since a great many GM's don't fit into this criteriea. I'm for this approach!


	IP Logged

alumbrado God Member Offline Esse quam videri bonus malebo Posts: 1418 Location: London Joined: 02/17/03 Gender:	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #17 - 07/05/06 at 09:24:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	I think this misunderstands the nature of inflation. If more people are getting the title that could be because the standard has slipped or it could be that more players are playing to that standard - or a bit of both. It does not strike me as a cut-and-dried issue whether there is any serious ELO inflation. There are only a few people who have managed to top Fischer's highest ranking and I for one would hesitate to say that Kasparov, Anand, Topalov do not play to a higher standard than Fischer. In fact I would argue that they probably do (Fischer fanatics please note, this is not to say that Fischer, too, would not play to this standard if he had played in this era - I do not seek to denigrate Fischer here!). If you look at some of the "best games" collections of the top players of the past, some of the "best of the rest" were (literally) amateurs. Also, post-USSR and with the rise of China and India, we are simply seeing a lot more of these guys come on the scene. With a lot more people now playing chess professionally does it not seem probable that a good proportion (not to say all) of the extra GMs arise from there being more players reaching that standard? So the question becomes, do we want to raise the standard so that a more-or-less fixed number of players can attain the title or do we simply accept that all these guys are just seriously strong players and let them get on with it? If we raise the standard now, what do we do about all the players who are GMs under the present standard but have not met the new one? Do they have their title stripped and have to re-earn it? What happens if we all get our way and lots more people across the world start playing chess and therefore more poeple reach that standard? Do we raise the bar again? And on what criteria do we decide when to raise the bar? To me, Crowther's suggestion is an off-the-cuff, back-of-a-beermat suggestion which has not been thought through.

	If sometimes we fly too close to the sun, at least this shows we are spreading our wings.
	IP Logged

Smyslov_Fan God Member Correspondence fan Offline Progress depends on the unreasonable man. ~GBS Posts: 6902 Joined: 06/15/05	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #16 - 07/05/06 at 08:20:43	Post Tools	Print Post
	Ah, Keano. I believe I see a flaw in your own argument. You say that "numerics" (whatever that means) doesn't enter into the qualification for being a Grandmaster, and that the number of Grandmasters doesn't "cheapen" the title. Well, to turn to economics, inflation is by definition the increase in the supply thereby cheapening each unit. (In economics, inflation is usually concerned with the supply of money, but the concept is equally valid for the supply of gold or any other item of value.) This is precisely what has happened to the chess Grandmaster. Whether you agree that this cheapening of the title is good or not, I believe it is impossible to deny that inflation, and therefore cheapening of the title has occurred.


	IP Logged

Keano God Member Offline Money doesn't talk, it swears. Posts: 2928 Location: Toulouse Joined: 05/25/05 Gender:	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #15 - 07/05/06 at 07:31:33	Post Tools	Print Post
	Not necessarily true Markovich - in 1973 chess was just getting kick started after the Fischer phenomenon. It is not a matter of numerics, you cannot say we can only have a certain amount of GrandMasters - the whole point is to have attained the level of chess mastery. Ask any of the GM´s young and old and they will tell you the title of GM is still very special.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #14 - 07/05/06 at 03:15:39	Post Tools	Print Post
	Keano wrote on 07/03/06 at 16:38:21: Quote: It is surely well beyond the time to change the mark at which a GM norm is set (2600) which is a performance which clearly wouldn't get you anywhere near the top 100 (when it was originally set it was a performance of Candidates class which is now probably over 2700). (This quote from Mark Crowther, The Week in Chess) Now, forgive me for a bit of a rant but it is hard enough to get a 2600 performance as it is, and playing the required number of GM´s, federations etc. I know a very promising 2500 player who has been trying for years to get even one GM norm! Now, hold on a minute, Mark Crowther wants us to have to get a 2700 performance No sorry Mark - why dont you just stitch the whole thing up while your at it In 1973, there were fewer Grandmasters (88) than Cardinals of the Catholic Church. Today, there are 123 Cardinals, but over 900 Grandmasters. It would seem evident that there has been a notable cheapening of the title, "Grandmaster."

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Keano God Member Offline Money doesn't talk, it swears. Posts: 2928 Location: Toulouse Joined: 05/25/05 Gender:	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #13 - 07/04/06 at 11:20:45	Post Tools	Print Post
	Well an IM is a master of sorts but I dont think I´d call him a master of his profession , there are plenty of very mediocre IM´s about. For me a GM is the true mark of mastery - when I play a GM I know it is a big big challenge. It is a magical mark in my opinion, and not something to be messed about with.


	IP Logged

Smyslov_Fan God Member Correspondence fan Offline Progress depends on the unreasonable man. ~GBS Posts: 6902 Joined: 06/15/05	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #12 - 07/04/06 at 10:30:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	Keano wrote on 07/04/06 at 09:57:12: - GM title was always the mark of mastery and there is no reason now to change it into a numerics thing. Well, to be precise, the title of Master is the mark of mastery. That for me is the point. A Grandmaster is far beyond the point of simple mastery.


	IP Logged

Keano God Member Offline Money doesn't talk, it swears. Posts: 2928 Location: Toulouse Joined: 05/25/05 Gender:	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #11 - 07/04/06 at 09:57:12	Post Tools	Print Post
	well dont forget that it is possible to get to 2600 without in fact getting any 2600 performances That is why it is so hard to get GM norms these days,. It really makes me smile when you say the title should be given out sparingly - it IS! As for this other idea of just having a very few GM´s who are the best players in the world well that is just so far off tangent I dont know what to say about it - GM title was always the mark of mastery and there is no reason now to change it into a numerics thing.


	IP Logged

Smyslov_Fan God Member Correspondence fan Offline Progress depends on the unreasonable man. ~GBS Posts: 6902 Joined: 06/15/05	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #10 - 07/04/06 at 09:53:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	Alias, I was so curious that I decided to look up Afromeev's tournament results. He seemed to have gone into semi-retirement in 2004 (he was born 50 years earlier), then between January and April of this year he played 39 games. These were all played in Tula, Russia. He faced many of the same players, and apparently the Novikov family plays chess and has at least two arbiters there. It seems a bit fishy. He seems to have broken 2600 by playing no GMs and the highest rated opponent was under 2500 at the time. Weird.


	IP Logged

Smyslov_Fan God Member Correspondence fan Offline Progress depends on the unreasonable man. ~GBS Posts: 6902 Joined: 06/15/05	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #9 - 07/04/06 at 09:43:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	Wow, Alias! I wonder if he played in any Bulgarian tournaments?


	IP Logged

Alias God Member Offline Posts: 1512 Location: East of the river Svartån Joined: 11/19/04	Re: Hard enough to be GM as it is thanks Mark... Reply #8 - 07/04/06 at 09:37:21	Post Tools	Print Post
	It was interesting to see that there is a FM in the new top 100 ELO-list. Not GM, not even IM. 97 Afromeev, Vladimir F RUS 2620 14 1954

	Don't check me with no lightweight stuff.
	IP Logged

Page Index Toggle

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Topic Tools

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Bookmarks:

del.icio.us

Digg

Google

Google+

reddit

StumbleUpon

Yahoo

« Board Index ‹ Board Top

Top

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge