Are there any specific requirements for becoming a NM?

  • #41

    An NM coffee cup, and chess groupies!

     

  • #42

    about a year or 2 ago I thought NM meant to get it you had to be a top player nationally and CM I thought was (City Master) meant one of the top players in city and now that I know what it really takes to reach on of those I think to myself (booooring my made up qualifiers seem much more intresting)Laughing

  • #43

    Laughing

  • #44

    This is the first time I've heard of that life master crap.

  • #45

    We want the groupies!  We want the groupies!

  • #46
    woodshover wrote:

    This is the first time I've heard of that life master crap.


    Even though the first (rated) master I ever played was DeFirmian, I'd actually played a LM the year before, although his rating had dropped to 2160 by the time I met him...a guy named Carl Pilnick.

  • #47

    Date Scarlett Johansson

  • #48
    woodshover wrote:

    This is the first time I've heard of that life master crap.


    Why is it "crap?" It is a way to recognize those that that have stayed at master strength for a long time rather than someone who just peaked over 2200 and fell back down to mid-expert.

    On the other hand, the USCF norm system... don't even get me started, lol.

  • #49
    iFrancisco wrote:
    woodshover wrote:

    This is the first time I've heard of that life master crap.


    Why is it "crap?" It is a way to recognize those that that have stayed at master strength for a long time rather than someone who just peaked over 2200 and fell back down to mid-expert.

    On the other hand, the USCF norm system... don't even get me started, lol.


     None of it will ever affect me anyhoooooooooooo.

  • #50
    AndyClifton wrote:

    Even though the first (rated) master I ever played was DeFirmian, I'd actually played a LM the year before, although his rating had dropped to 2160 by the time I met him...a guy named Carl Pilnick.


    Pilnick was about 2300 back when there weren't many of those. He won the US Amateur in the early 70s and the comment I remember from the CL&R article was What was he doing there? meaning dropped his rating so low as to qualify.

    He was known as a strong master, not just a normal NM.

  • #51
    iFrancisco wrote:
    It is a way to recognize those that that have stayed at master strength for a long time rather than someone who just peaked over 2200 and fell back down to mid-expert.

     

    Still, according to USCF we're cool now. Cool

  • #52
    iFrancisco wrote:
    woodshover wrote:

    This is the first time I've heard of that life master crap.


    Why is it "crap?" It is a way to recognize those that that have stayed at master strength for a long time rather than someone who just peaked over 2200 and fell back down to mid-expert.

    On the other hand, the USCF norm system... don't even get me started, lol.


    One of my friends got 3 IM norms and currently is "Candidate Master" according to the USCF norm system, which I find quite hilarious because he has played some of the best players in the world at classical controls (Anand, Larsen, Reshevsky) with the occasional outstanding result, and is FIDE 2300 and has an FM title.  Additionally he was once 2450 USCF but now has a US rating floor of 2100,  which is interesting, although he's currently at 2270.  Also at some point I was a 3rd or 4th category player of expert rating according to the US norms system -  because I rarely played in tournaments longer than 3 rounds, I generally play league games at local chess clubs.  One player I know was rated sub-900 as a kid, didn't play tournament chess for many years and then came back to OTB play to start beating on 1900 players upon his return.  He placed very well in at least two Goichburg tourneys and I doubt his opponents were thrilled, though I don't mind such anomalies, I play for the competition and aesthetics.  IM and GM are the only titles with value IMO (discounts at tourneys, prestige of the title) and rating doesn't matter, the game is the same for all.  Interestingly a few of my friends have quick ratings higher than standard, and is the case for me, but you don't get NM for hitting 2200 quick first.

  • #53

    Well, rating certainly does matter to me...and to most people I've known (not much point to join USCF without that).  And now they have norms?!...lol.  God, those bozos...it just gets worse and worse!  And I thought they couldn't get any more ridiculous than the days of the Candidate Experts (USCF proves me wrong yet again).

  • #54
    Petrosianic wrote:
    iFrancisco wrote:
    woodshover wrote:

    This is the first time I've heard of that life master crap.


    Why is it "crap?" It is a way to recognize those that that have stayed at master strength for a long time rather than someone who just peaked over 2200 and fell back down to mid-expert.

    On the other hand, the USCF norm system... don't even get me started, lol.


    One of my friends got 3 IM norms and currently is "Candidate Master" according to the USCF norm system, which I find quite hilarious because he has played some of the best players in the world at classical controls (Anand, Larsen, Reshevsky) with the occasional outstanding result, and is FIDE 2300 and has an FM title.  Additionally he was once 2450 USCF but now has a US rating floor of 2100,  which is interesting, although he's currently at 2270.  Also at some point I was a 3rd or 4th category player of expert rating according to the US norms system -  because I rarely played in tournaments longer than 3 rounds, I generally play league games at local chess clubs.  One player I know was rated sub-900 as a kid, didn't play tournament chess for many years and then came back to OTB play to start beating on 1900 players upon his return.  He placed very well in at least two Goichburg tourneys and I doubt his opponents were thrilled, though I don't mind such anomalies, I play for the competition and aesthetics.  IM and GM are the only titles with value IMO (discounts at tourneys, prestige of the title) and rating doesn't matter, the game is the same for all.  Interestingly a few of my friends have quick ratings higher than standard, and is the case for me, but you don't get NM for hitting 2200 quick first.


    I thought I understood how the uscf rating "floor" works but apparently I do not. If he was ever over 2400 uscf his floor should be 2200 and not 2100. 

  • #55

    I realize it's hardly the definitive source, but according to Wikipedia a floor of 2200 is only granted to those with Original Life Master status, and otherwise the highest floor is 2100.  So perhaps his friend peaked over 2400 without amassing (yet) 300 games over 2200?

  • #56

    I think floors are a bad idea anyway and certainly should be adjusted, if not removed completely , for seniors.  I know a NM who is now in his 70s and his floor is 2200 but he no longer plays chess at this level and it keeps him from being competitive. He has written uscf and asked that his floor be adjusted and they refuse..... so far. 

  • #57
    Reb wrote:

    I think floors are a bad idea anyway and certainly should be adjusted, if not removed completely , for seniors.  I know a NM who is now in his 70s and his floor is 2200 but he no longer plays chess at this level and it keeps him from being competitive. He has written uscf and asked that his floor be adjusted and they refuse..... so far. 


    We don't have rating floors in the ECF, so one can play his whole life, gradually sliding down the order. We have one player at my club who is nearly ninety and still competitive, in the minor section.

  • #58

    I can see how the establishment of floors helped curtail sandbagging, but it does seem like it would make more sense to bestow a floor for a time period (maybe 10 years?), reviewable thereafter for another period, rather than as a lifetime chain around the neck.

  • #59
    Cystem_Phailure wrote:

    I can see how the establishment of floors helped curtail sandbagging, but it does seem like it would make more sense to bestow a floor for a time period (maybe 10 years?), reviewable thereafter for another period, rather than as a lifetime chain around the neck.


    Yes....as we age we become worse at everything than when we were younger and certainly chess isnt an exception. A player that can no longer be competitive because of a floor that isnt accurate is likely to quit playing competitive chess , especially given the increasing costs of playing in tournaments. Does uscf want to encourage tourney players to stop playing tourney chess ? If they stop playing tournies they also no longer have a reason to remain uscf members... 

  • #60

    Can someone explain or give me a link explaining rating floors and what there used for cause I honestly haven't a clue yet i'm part of USCF.

or Join

Online Now