If titles were a little more accurate

2400+ Chess "Expert"

2600+ Chess "Master"

Top 10: Chess "GrandMaster"

or

2300+ Chess "Expert"

2500+ Chess "Master"

Top 20/40/50/100: Chess "GrandMaster"

What do you think?

Here's my pure speculation:

Compared to an amateur player, a 2400 or even 2200 is extremely good, yes. But in terms of chess itself, when looking at it from the top down -- If the best players, let's say 2800 level players, can destroy a 2200-2400 like it's nothing... is 2200-2400 really a "chess master?"

And then, "GrandMaster" should be extremely exclusive, for the absolute best of the best.

The word "expert" itself implies near mastery, aint that good enough? The term already implies a relatively elite level of skill.

Just some thoughts. This is based on what I've observed of titled players' perception of their ratings and level of skill.

Some interesting articles

http://www.chess.com/article/view/deep-thinking-and-the-differences-between-titled-players

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/lsquoa-gm-is-a-gmrsquo

I'd like to hear what other people have to say on this topic, especially stronger/titled players.

I don't know if anything will change with FIDE or whatever, and certainly not due to this thread on chess.com, but just for discussions sake. :)

I hope that pie is really cocunut creme, and not those cheap shaving creamm ones like at WGN.

I believe it to be whipped cream.

It should be like in Pokemon: For every major city you have a Gym leader from who you collect badges once you beat them and in order to become the next 'Champ', you need to challenge and defeat the Elite 4 (the four best players/Pokemon trainers in the world) and the current person holding that title.

Logical and down-to-earth.

what ifyou make a draw;D

A draw counts as 0. You would have to appoint a rematch, as only a win would earn you that badge.

And 'em badges would be made out of solid gold, so one could afford to travel all across the world to collect all of them.

That would be awesome.

2400 is not that bad... I mean an IM would beat the pulp out of any recreational player 100/100 times blindfolded... Sounds like a master performance to me

edit: added this post to the original post

You would like this article on the same topic:

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4010268/a-gm-is-a-gm--fide-title-devaluation-260613.aspx

I would be so pissed off if I were 11th.

This is the best proposal I have ever read to combat GM title devaluation.

Yes I definitely did! I linked it in my post above yours.

You are right, since I saw a chess.com link, I though it was another thing.

Hah. Would make you fight hard to move up a spot, eh?

Also, I edited my original post to add a 2nd set of hypothetical values.

So, you just bend the rules to make TragicAffair a GM???

This just doesn´t look fair for the 101th player.

The 101th player would just have to deal with it. :)

I really like this:

2300+ Chess "Expert"

2500+ Chess "Master"

Top 50: Chess "GrandMaster"

Makes sense.