Discussion digressing.. as usual.. 
Should Carlsen be given the title of Hyper-grandmaster?
Sort:
yes
No. Hyper grandmaster sounds bad. Think of other title.
Aug 7, 2013
0
#27
4-d space is called hyper-space. Does that sound bad to you Mandy711? By hyper we mean that his strength exceeds strength of all other chess players of this generation.
I think numerical ratings say it all. It's as precise a description as you can get.
In the culture I grew up, calling someone "hyper" means high on drugs. So I dislike the title hyper grandmaster.
Aug 7, 2013
0
#30
FanOfCarlsen wrote:
What is going on? No answer to original question! LOL
The first several responses all said: NO.
Yes. He is all hype!! Just kidding
raveloni wrote:
Thank you Here_is_Plenty.I appreciate your appreciation.I hope your sarcasm is only partial.I might avoid being banned if you suggest me appropriate replecement for the word asshole.I can't find anything that is more polite to describe a cocky chess player.
Elitist might do. Possibly overbearing jackass. Regardless, I did not use sarcasm. This term is applied to different forms of humour by people, incorrectly, when what is used is sardonic, wry or ironic at times.
Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
Welcome to the chess forum. We have appreciated your input, raveloni and will miss you when you are gone.
Lol! :D
Let's see how he fairs against Anand in November, and then we'll talk about what we should call him!
Aug 8, 2013
0
#35
@Natalia: I think everybody is confused. We must agree that the Title World champion doesn't talk about the strength of a player. I mean it does but it doesn't mean that he/she is a unique person to have highest strength. Why do we have separation like Super-grandmaster and grandmaster? This is so because these two reflect the strengths. In that sense I think we will surely have generation of Hyper-grandmasters with strength > 2900 ELO in future and even Supergrandmasters will have no chance to defeat them in general.
FanOfCarlsen wrote:
In that sense I think we will surely have generation of Hyper-grandmasters with strength > 2900 ELO in future and even Supergrandmasters will have no chance to defeat them in general.
I'm afraid that your understanding about chess is full of misconceptions.
I thought a misconception was when you were expecting a baby girl?
FanOfCarlsen wrote:
@Natalia: I think everybody is confused. We must agree that the Title World champion doesn't talk about the strength of a player. I mean it does but it doesn't mean that he/she is a unique person to have highest strength. Why do we have separation like Super-grandmaster and grandmaster? This is so because these two reflect the strengths. In that sense I think we will surely have generation of Hyper-grandmasters with strength > 2900 ELO in future and even Supergrandmasters will have no chance to defeat them in general.
@FanOfCarlsen:
I think you are confused. The title "World Chess Champion" is supposed to be bestowed on the strongest chess player in the world. Carlsen will have to prove that he is indeed the strongest by beating Anand.
The titles are supposed to be indicators of the players' strength. If they don't indicate the players' strength, then there is no point of having titles in the first place. There is also no point of adding more titles like Hyper-Grandmaster or Super Duper Grandmaster, if existing titles don't tell a player's strength. So I don't agree with your assessment that World Champion title doesn't talk about a player's strength.
Carlsen has the highest FIDE rating atm. His rating is higher than Anand's. Does it mean that he is a better player than Anand? Probably. Carlsen will have to prove it in the championship match. The championship match is there to test whether a person is indeed better than the reigning champion.
Throughout the history, there were people who could have been the best chess players in the world. Since they did not participate in the championship match, we have no way to tell that they were indeed the best. I can say Person A is the best. You can say Person B is the best. It's all subjective. Hell, even my mother thinks that I am the best chess player in the country 
(although I don't think that I can beat an NM). The championship match is there to proof whether a person is indeed qualified to be called the best. So is Carlsen the best? We'll see.
"I think you are confused. The title "World Chess Champion" is supposed to be bestowed on the strongest chess player in the world."
No it's not. It's supposed to be betowed on the player who wins the World Chess Championship.
Scottrf wrote:
"I think you are confused. The title "World Chess Champion" is supposed to be bestowed on the strongest chess player in the world."
No it's not. It's supposed to be betowed on the player who wins the World Chess Championship.
If a player wins the World Chess Championship, that player beats the other player, right? So the winner is stronger than the loser. Since it is a match between the two best players in the world, the winner hence becomes the strongest in the world.
I am aware that matches aren't perfect. People may not be in their top condition during a match. However, unless we have a reliable means to measure a person mental health and take that into a factor, matches are the closest we can get to determine a person's chess strength.
Thank you Here_is_Plenty.I appreciate your appreciation.I hope your sarcasm is only partial.I might avoid being banned if you suggest me appropriate replecement for the word asshole.I can't find anything that is more polite to describe a cocky chess player.