Andy said he wasn't a NM anymore because the title wasn't permanent if you dropped below some rating.
ICC Follies #11
Sort:
woodshover wrote:
Andy said he wasn't a NM anymore because the title wasn't permanent if you dropped below some rating.
I thought titles were permanent. I'm pretty sure that GM titles are permanent, so all the rest should be if they are.
IM and GM are different. They require norms and stuff. Other titles are based on ratings alone.
mrguy888 wrote:
IM and GM are different. They require norms and stuff. Other titles are based on ratings alone.
Thanks, I knew some titles were based on ratings, but I thought all of them were for life.
kborg wrote:
It took me three months to figure out the difference between the Trolls and the "Troll-Busters"
Don't feel too embarrassed. It's not like anyone here thought you were quick-witted-- just full of yourself. How many hours a day do you spend gazing into a mirror?
Welcome again, Brainiac. You have a Great Picture.
kborg wrote:
You have a Great Picture.
Thanks! Yours could use some work.
browni3141 wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Andy said he wasn't a NM anymore because the title wasn't permanent if you dropped below some rating.
I thought titles were permanent. I'm pretty sure that GM titles are permanent, so all the rest should be if they are.
He said it was just NM that wasn't permanent. All higher ones are.
NM isnt permanent ? Thats certainly news to me ! Why would NM be the only title that isnt permanent ? 
In the United States, the title of "National Master" is awarded for life, regardless of whether the rating of a National Master subsequently goes below 2200.[1] In August 2002, this position was codified (after being recognized as the existing status quo) by the USCF Policy Board with the passage of a motion stating "Any USCF member who has had a regular post tournament rating of 2200 or higher (published or not) has demonstrated a significant level of chess ability and is recognized by being automatically awarded the lifetime title of National Master."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_master
Ex-parrot wrote:
In the United States, the title of "National Master" is awarded for life, regardless of whether the rating of a National Master subsequently goes below 2200.[1] In August 2002, this position was codified (after being recognized as the existing status quo) by the USCF Policy Board with the passage of a motion stating "Any USCF member who has had a regular post tournament rating of 2200 or higher (published or not) has demonstrated a significant level of chess ability and is recognized by being automatically awarded the lifetime title of National Master."
A M E N
The above is true as of 2002, but I think the USCF adopted some sort of norm based system for titles at some point thereafter, retroactively changing in the process all title/category qualifications and introducing the (somewhat silly IMO) "Candidate Master" concept. Unfortunately, since exact records for games played (and thus potential norms earned) extends only from some arbitrary point in the 90's, a lot of older players may be excluded from titles they've earned.
GargleBlaster wrote:
The above is true as of 2002, but I think the USCF adopted some sort of norm based system for titles at some point thereafter, retroactively changing in the process all title/category qualifications and introducing the (somewhat silly IMO) "Candidate Master" concept. Unfortunately, since exact records for games played (and thus potential norms earned) extends only from some arbitrary point in the 90's, a lot of older players may be excluded from titles they've earned.
Well , even if the USCF is stupid enough to actually do that , which I dont doubt at all, I also earned the NM title in Portugal and theirs is based on FIDE rating and theirs is for life. I dont think the uscf norm system strips players from what they did/earned before the current norm system existed and until I read something from a reliable source that says thats the case everything else is nothing but speculation imo .
Reb wrote:
GargleBlaster wrote:
The above is true as of 2002, but I think the USCF adopted some sort of norm based system for titles at some point thereafter, retroactively changing in the process all title/category qualifications and introducing the (somewhat silly IMO) "Candidate Master" concept. Unfortunately, since exact records for games played (and thus potential norms earned) extends only from some arbitrary point in the 90's, a lot of older players may be excluded from titles they've earned.
Well , even if the USCF is stupid enough to actually do that , which I dont doubt at all, I also earned the NM title in Portugal and theirs is based on FIDE rating and theirs is for life. I dont think the uscf norm system strips players from what they did/earned before the current norm system existed and until I read something from a reliable source that says thats the case everything else is nothing but speculation imo .
Well, yes, your Portuguese title is of course unaffected by anything the USCF does. Also, I doubt the American NM title is stripped from those that earned it under the older "reach 2200 and you're in" system (though, as you say, with the USCF anything is possible), and was thinking more of those nearing 2200 who, should they now attain said rating, will require additional norms for the title in spite of having possibly already qualified based on pre-1991 results.
GargleBlaster wrote:
Reb wrote:
GargleBlaster wrote:
The above is true as of 2002, but I think the USCF adopted some sort of norm based system for titles at some point thereafter, retroactively changing in the process all title/category qualifications and introducing the (somewhat silly IMO) "Candidate Master" concept. Unfortunately, since exact records for games played (and thus potential norms earned) extends only from some arbitrary point in the 90's, a lot of older players may be excluded from titles they've earned.
Well , even if the USCF is stupid enough to actually do that , which I dont doubt at all, I also earned the NM title in Portugal and theirs is based on FIDE rating and theirs is for life. I dont think the uscf norm system strips players from what they did/earned before the current norm system existed and until I read something from a reliable source that says thats the case everything else is nothing but speculation imo .
Well, yes, your Portuguese title is of course unaffected by anything the USCF does. Also, I doubt the American NM title is stripped from those that earned it under the older "reach 2200 and you're in" system (though, as you say, with the USCF anything is possible), and was thinking more of those nearing 2200 who, should they now attain said rating, will require additional norms for the title in spite of having possibly already qualified based on pre-1991 results.
Go to uschess.org - players&ratings - player/rating lookup and plug in Daniel Gurevich of Georgia.... he is a young player and got his NM Certificate/title in 2010 since the norm system was put in place so it seems 2200 rating still earns the title/certificate . It appears from the info there that he started playing tournies in 2004 .
Reb wrote:
GargleBlaster wrote:
Reb wrote:
GargleBlaster wrote:
The above is true as of 2002, but I think the USCF adopted some sort of norm based system for titles at some point thereafter, retroactively changing in the process all title/category qualifications and introducing the (somewhat silly IMO) "Candidate Master" concept. Unfortunately, since exact records for games played (and thus potential norms earned) extends only from some arbitrary point in the 90's, a lot of older players may be excluded from titles they've earned.
Well , even if the USCF is stupid enough to actually do that , which I dont doubt at all, I also earned the NM title in Portugal and theirs is based on FIDE rating and theirs is for life. I dont think the uscf norm system strips players from what they did/earned before the current norm system existed and until I read something from a reliable source that says thats the case everything else is nothing but speculation imo .
Well, yes, your Portuguese title is of course unaffected by anything the USCF does. Also, I doubt the American NM title is stripped from those that earned it under the older "reach 2200 and you're in" system (though, as you say, with the USCF anything is possible), and was thinking more of those nearing 2200 who, should they now attain said rating, will require additional norms for the title in spite of having possibly already qualified based on pre-1991 results.
Go to uschess.org - players&ratings - player/rating lookup and plug in Daniel Gurevich of Georgia.... he is a young player and got his NM Certificate/title in 2010 since the norm system was put in place so it seems 2200 rating still earns the title/certificate . It appears from the info there that he started playing tournies in 2004 .
If he's been playing since 2004 might he simply have the required norms by now, that is, in addition to his rating? Again, I was thinking more of someone with a lot of games (and thus potential "norms") before 1991 that first crosses 2200 under the new system.
If you check his page on uschess.org you will see he was awarded the title/certificate in 2010 and yet his norms based chess says he's only candidate master by the norm system. My page is similar but I got the title/certificate in 1984 but my norms based chess says I am only candidate master. It is a bit confusing which is normal when dealing with uscf. It appears that if you cross 2200 under the new norm system you still get the title , wheteher or not you played a lot before this system was in place....
OK, that's good to hear. I'm trying to somehow eek my way to 2200 (2150 currently) at the moment and am frustrated by the new norm system - hell, I've played probably over 150 games by now with a rating over 2100 and yet don't even qualify for the Candidate Master title since so many of my games were played before going to college in '91.
Hmmmm.