9705 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Hold on one second.
Women's world champion receive the GM title as award "for free". That's how Ushenina got her GM title. Her peak rating was 2502, but I don't think she did any GM norm so she's not a "real" GM. They gave her the title of GM only because she's female.
Second, as I said before if a woman plays only in segregated tournaments her rating is just nonsense because the standard in women's tournaments might be much, much lower.
Only women who deserve a title and recognition as chess players are those who play in "non-segregated" tournaments. Polgar, or Hou Yifan for example.
blueemu, if you look at the currently FIDE list of the strongest women, it's clear that most of them don't deserve the GM title. Their ratings are just too low and with few exceptions they come from playing in segregated events.
There's even a GM with a rating of 2389.
Her GM title hasn't been "for free". Winning the FIDE women championship knockout is great achievement, definitely higher than ordinary GM norm.
Also I would like to see people not back up their arguments about player's strength on ratings. According to Arpad Elo, ratings shouldn't serve that purpose. Ratings are merely statistical tool.
Baloney. If winning the FIDE women's title was really a greater achievement than the usual GM norm process, she would be turning in GM norms regularly - since she is better than that, right?
It makes no sense to assert this. All these automatic titles for Women's, Senior, and Junior champions are bogus. It is a great achievement to win any of those titles, but it is NOT the same as fulfilling the normal requirements.
I am glad I just mastered the mate today!
How do you feel about Fischer's bogus GM title?
She would have if she had played in rated men's tournaments enough.
I am a lot more skeptical about GM titles achieved with ordinary norm processes. There are a lot of pre-arranged results, bribery and even bogus tournaments also happened.
Congrats. It pays off.
I assume Fischer cleared the norms during his career.
So in the end him having the title is ok, but I agree with Estragon, those titles are worth less then getting a GM title the "normal" way.
And I disagree with Estragon, because to win women championship knockout is definitely harder (a lot!) than achieve GM norm.
Think of it this way:
There are 29 women who are Grandmasters.
I don't know for sure how many women are still alive who have won the World Championship, but I'm pretty sure it's far less than 29. And most of the women's world champions were grandmasters before they won.
Having said that, the tournament format for the last women's world championship was a bit of a lottery, much in the same way that Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov won world championships.
Ushenina's rating has hovered around 2500 for a while now. She is certainly GM strength.
Meanwhile, Lilienthal and Epishin were both grandmasters who failed to solve the B+N mate over the board. I'm still surprised that a modern GM wouldn't be able to do it, but Ushenina's credentials are not dented by that. She is still 2450-2500 strength.
For those of you who would like to try:
Arg, for premium members only. Maybe Ushenina is not a premium member.
titled players get free premium membership if they sign up for an account. Too bad Ushenina didn't.
Congratulations. I still can't mate Fritz. Not easy.
Are you "just trying", or did you actually learn a method? (Deletang's Triangle, or the standard "W" maneuver).
By the way, another fun and unorthodox yet useful ending, is Q vs N.
It's considerably easier than B+N, but not as straight forward as Q vs B at least. As far as I'm away there is no specific method to do this, other than placing your king and queen on "good squares" - that is, squares where the knight cannot check you (or god forbid, fork). Basically just push the opponent's king to the edge of the board, and from there checkmate or the win of the knight can be forced.
4/16/2014 - Mate in 3
by kayenor a few minutes ago
What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?
by capablanca2014 3 minutes ago
Autoplay the only SINGLE move option
by ajitketkar 11 minutes ago
IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFEAT ME!!!
by Jex_Roselin 15 minutes ago
by BlackStrat 20 minutes ago
I like doing this. Is it a known opening?
by pentiumjs 26 minutes ago
3/29/2014 - Creating Chaos
by lal_badam 27 minutes ago
3/30/2014 - Endgame Fundamentals
by lal_badam 28 minutes ago
Solve the endgame 5
by luitel 28 minutes ago
by please_let_me_win 33 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!