Difference between FMs, IMs, GMs, Top-GMs

[COMMENT DELETED]

GMs failed / aspiring to become Top GM
IMs failed / aspiring to become GM
FMs failed / aspiring to become IM
Rated failed / aspiring to become FM
Unrated failed / aspiring to become rated

Titled players, and even reigning world champions have answered this question, unfortunately the answer is probably more boring than what you hoped for:

Stronger players, in general, are a little better at everything. Yes IMs, on average,  will have better opening prep than FMs. Yes, in general, players with more advanced titles have more experience.

They will also be better at things like calculation, tactics, and endgame theory.

I guess I'll throw in one interesting thought, which is, the best moves aren't always hard to find because they're obscure or deep. Sometimes the best moves are hard to find because there are many bad possibilities that seem good.

So one thing strong players do, whether through calculation, sheer weight of accumulated experience, or otherwise, is they can identify bad moves as being bad more reliably than players weaker than them. You may notice, even in world championship match games, most of the good moves look good even at a glance. Sometimes what's impressive are the moves that weren't chosen.

This is really true. Eliminating the bad lines is more important skill. But, it requires lot of calculation or lot of experience to do that.

It is the rating,the experience and the competition that they go to.
Only the FIDE people can upgrade them from a IM to a GM.They also must represent good results and good games that they play in international (or sometimes national) competitions.
There is exactly no difference but the GMs and the FMs show better results than IMs and NMs
Maybe the FMs have higher ratings than GMs online or the FM train harder and end up beating a GM in a competition.So that is my explanation.
If you have any questions,please ask it in the forum and I will check it for the next two weeks daily.

P.S. Can I make a Friend as I don't have one now

#Iamawesome
#northlandcrasher

Honestly, once you get to a certain rating, its all the same. GMs and world champions can calculate much father ahead, so naturally, they lose less, win more, and thus have a higher rating

I'd say it comes down to accuracy and depth. The stronger the player, the more accurate their moves and the deeper their calculations tend to be.

GMs, in particular, tend to be excellent at creating and/or exploiting structural weaknesses. When you watch a GM play against an IM or FM, it's quite common to see the lower-ranked player stuck defending a backward pawn or trying to maneuver with a cramped piece.

GMs also seem to be a bit more accurate in complicated endgames than their lower-rated counterparts.

The differences between a GM and other titled players aren't huge, but they span across various aspects of the game, little by little, and they all tend add up.

In the endgame, exact moves matter, such as moving your king from this square to this square in THAT Order to triangulate or positionally win, whereas in the opening and middlegame, u can make a lot of "good moves". You can also save the game in the endgame if u messed up in the middle game

[COMMENT DELETED]