I was trying to think of a practical example of your theory.
They can undoubtedly handle king versus king as well as a super GM.
Other than that, I'm not so sure.
I was trying to think of a practical example of your theory.
They can undoubtedly handle king versus king as well as a super GM.
Other than that, I'm not so sure.
First of all, it's possible to be both an IM and be +2600.
I love Dzindzi's comment: The difference between an IM and a GM is that no GM wants to become an IM.
I think you'd have to ask some GMs and/or IMs. When I was a 1400 rated player I wouldn't be able to comment on the difference between a 1600 and an 1800.
I do recall the Carlsen said something along the lines that the difference between a 2500 GM and a 2800 GM not being so huge.
IM's still don't know how to play chess. Most GM's know a little.
When I started winning against experts, and then listening to a lot of foolish talk amongst NM's, that's when I realized no one is actually 'good' at chess ... it's all relative.
It's a bit scary to see games between 2200s and 2400s in which the former are dropping pawns off of the board.
steve_bute: chess god
Please, it's demi-god. Don't feed my ego, it's already got a weight problem.
Once more, with feeling:
There have been IMs who were +2600! The two groups are not mutually exclusive. So yes, an IM can be every bit as strong as a 2600!
Anton Demchenko was a 2600+ IM for some time in 2012 before becoming GM in 2013
Igor Kovalenko reached 2581 before he became GM
Right now we have this list:
http://ratings.fide.com/advaction.phtml?idcode=&name=&title=m&other_title=&country=%25&sex=&srating=0&erating=3000&birthday=&radio=rating&line=desc
@ steve - I somewhat agree with that..I know a lot about chess..not really though if you think about it...Theres more that I dont know, than I know..and I am a NM admitting this...theres so many possibilities, thats why engines are better than humans.
Only thing seperating them being how well they control there emotions, use their time wisely and stay disciplined about their analysis ? Depending on who the IM is and what type of positions they favor/more familier with there able to play those positions just as strong as a super GM (2700+) would !What do you guys think of this theory ?
I understand you mean from a technical point of view, and you explain the difference by other factors (psychology, nerves...). It might be the case in some games or in some positions, but I doubt non-technical factors only could account for a skill difference of 200 points (maybe 50, maybe 100 ?)
Only thing seperating them being how well they control there emotions, use their time wisely and stay disciplined about their analysis ? Depending on who the IM is and what type of positions they favor/more familier with there able to play those positions just as strong as a super GM (2700+) would !What do you guys think of this theory ?
I understand you mean from a technical point of view, and you explain the difference by other factors (psychology, nerves...). It might be the case in some games or in some positions, but I doubt non-technical factors only could account for a skill difference of 200 points (maybe 50, maybe 100 ?)
That makes more since for amatures I think like why a 1600 loses to 1700 even though there both Class B fro experts and the above it might be the diffrence for 50 or it might be completely vice-versa.
Only thing seperating them being how well they control there emotions, use their time wisely and stay disciplined about their analysis ? Depending on who the IM is and what type of positions they favor/more familier with there able to play those positions just as strong as a super GM (2700+) would !What do you guys think of this theory ?