Do Super GMs deserve their own FIDE title?
Sort:
Apr 8, 2017
0
#23
Average Joe of the present is more mediocre and therefore more narcissistic and therefore he likes elite groups less.
Esir_1 wrote:
Average Joe of the present is more mediocre and therefore more narcissistic and therefore he likes elite groups less.
How do you know this? How do you back these claims?
Apr 8, 2017
0
#25
A chessmaster is 98% better than the rest of the world at their craft.
FMs and above are in the 1% category.
ANYONE thats a 2400+ on a STANDARD basis otb is elite.
Chess in 1905 is as good as it is today.
I never get tired of saying I don't mind if there are Super GM titles, as long they're forced to wear a cloak and have their underpants over their trousers...
Ziggy_Zugzwang wrote:
I never get tired of saying I don't mind if there are Super GM titles, as long they're forced to wear a cloak and have their underpants over their trousers...
Ha! Very good!
Thanks, I get a laugh every time I say that 
Chess Time Lords?
The top players are now in the 2800 range. Soon they will be in the 2900 range and the 2700 "super GM's" will be more like "run-of-the-mill" GM's. Ratings inflation renders these verbal titles rather meaningless. Maybe anyone who has ever qualified for the World Candidates cycle should be called a GM, no matter what their rating.
Super GM, my bad
Apr 8, 2017
0
#32
id like to see a STANDARD 2900 player otb.
THATD be titled Human Chess Engine HCE
Cybord2000 wrote:
id like to see a STANDARD 2900 player otb.
THATD be titled Human Chess Engine HCE
That would be cool, think Magnus will get to 2900?
Apr 8, 2017
0
#34
The irony of Magnus is that he already has an engine named after him.
play magnus age 17.
Apr 9, 2017
0
#35
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
Esir_1 wrote:
Average Joe of the present is more mediocre and therefore more narcissistic and therefore he likes elite groups less.
How do you know this? How do you back these claims?
I merely stated well known facts (and I don't think you are really not acquainted with them), the only question is how much they are relevant to the topic.
Anyway i find interesting what Dannyhume pointed out, maybe changing the titles would expose their inherent lack of meaning. The only real thing is ELO, everything else are arbitrary thresholds. It's just like the IQ, that ridiculous modern way of objectively measuring intelligence which appeals most to those who want to have an objective measurement prescinding any relationship with others.
In chess, as in every part of modern society, the deeper one looks the more cognitive dissonances one founds. Chess players want to have an objective measurement of their skill based on a relative measurement, this is a cognitive dissonance. It can be conscious if one is honest to oneself, it is subconscious if one lies to oneself.
Apr 9, 2017
0
#36
Interesting topic. Perhaps we should look at the military where the top rank is a General but not all Generals are equal. If we look at the American Army we see that when someone is promoted to the rank of General they start off with just one star. In time a person might be able to add stars and reach the 5 star level. So the question here seems to be what to call the top GMs. Perhaps they could be called RGMs for Royal Grand Masters ?
badenwurtca wrote:
Interesting topic. Perhaps we should look at the military where the top rank is a General but not all Generals are equal. If we look at the American Army we see that when someone is promoted to the rank of General they start off with just one star. In time a person might be able to add stars and reach the 5 star level. So the question here seems to be what to call the top GMs. Perhaps they could be called RGMs for Royal Grand Masters ?
That's an interesting point.
Maybe
2500-2600: 1 Star GM
2600-2700: 2 Star GM
2700- Above: 3 Star GM
badenwurtca wrote:
Interesting topic. Perhaps we should look at the military where the top rank is a General but not all Generals are equal. If we look at the American Army we see that when someone is promoted to the rank of General they start off with just one star. In time a person might be able to add stars and reach the 5 star level. So the question here seems to be what to call the top GMs. Perhaps they could be called RGMs for Royal Grand Masters ?
This would work for Europeans and monarchists. Perhaps, also make the title hereditary. For Americans we could have a Presidential Grand Masters, where you a chess.com rating of 1100 + a billion dollars gets you the title...just trying to be helpful....
Here's a thought. When the term "supergrandmaster" has been inflated, should the next one be "superdupergrandmaster" ?
Anyway, everybody feel free to post your ideas for what the title should be called here. I'm sure FIDE will appreciate it when they read this.