If it were as simple as learning a set of positions then any idiot could become a GM.
The actual GM title is based on performance. If you score about 50% against other GMs, then you're a GM. Simple.
Grandmaster - A Reexamining of Qualifications
Sort:
Apr 25, 2021
0
#3
BRYANT43 wrote:
You can't be a Grandmaster and not know how to mate with a Bishop and Knight, right??
...
They say chess has changed over the years. Have the qualifications for becoming a Grandmaster also changed? Based on the 5 steps to become GM on this site it doesn't seem so. Would any high level players be willing to share their views on the possible reexamining of Grandmaster qualifications?
Similar to what llama47 posted above, GM is based on your performance compared to other GMs. Therefore, that portion of the GM requirement is timeless.
As compared with the some GMs blundering a bishop and knight mate, the reason is in two parts:
- Low time control or time pressure where the GM buckled.
- Lone bishop and knight vs king scenarios are simply just very, very rare.
Apr 25, 2021
0
#4
Endgame books have plenty of examples of strong players blundering in "basic" positions.
But in reality, most GMs could figure out B+N mate OTB.
Judit Polgar did the mate blindfold and didn't even use a standard method (seemingly just doing it on her own, freestyle).
You have to remember that some of these endgame blunders come at the end of a 7 hour game, some in time trouble, and in the middle of a 20 day tournament... the player can be exhausted, so mistakes will happen.
I just thought there may have been an adjustment with qualifications as the game slowly changed. Don't mean to argue - it was surprising to see him blunder that though. Grandmasters blundering, that topic should keep me distracted for the next hour or so. This right here is amazing, just amazing. Guess revisiting wouldn't make much sense then..
llama47 wrote:
If it were as simple as learning a set of positions then any idiot could become a GM.
The actual GM title is based on performance. If you score about 50% against other GMs, then you're a GM. Simple.
Therefore being a GM isn't as impressive as, say, a doctorate in a difficult topic. Nor as useful.
Apr 25, 2021
0
#8
Optimissed wrote:
llama47 wrote:
If it were as simple as learning a set of positions then any idiot could become a GM.
The actual GM title is based on performance. If you score about 50% against other GMs, then you're a GM. Simple.
Therefore being a GM isn't as impressive as, say, a doctorate in a difficult topic. Nor as useful.
There's only 1,692 GMs in the world, which is mind blowing considering there are 258,664 people actively playing chess on chess.com at the moment of this post. Let alone all the other chess websites that we will get banned if we mention!
Getting a GM title is pretty impressive.
Thanks for the input. As far as Grandmasters not being as impressive - idk, there's no Doctors in Kung Fu and in the right situation... you might need some kicks instead of fast talk. I think it's very cool a title like Grandmaster is only shared with an Art form - to me that says a lot.
Apr 25, 2021
0
#10
Optimissed wrote:
llama47 wrote:
If it were as simple as learning a set of positions then any idiot could become a GM.
The actual GM title is based on performance. If you score about 50% against other GMs, then you're a GM. Simple.
Therefore being a GM isn't as impressive as, say, a doctorate in a difficult topic. Nor as useful.
I don't know how you reached that conclusion from what I said... but IIRC you're old, so you're probably too senile to make a cogent point.
Jun 6, 2021
0
#11
Just coming to this Forum topic... have not read all the posts yet (sorry) -- but thought a quick link to a (long, but Great!) video interview with a World Champion I never 'got' until this brilliant interview (Anand was so open and 'free' in this interview!) ... he talks about 'Inflation' in GM title holders -- the numbers have gone through the roof, some say, and wonder why? Even with seeming 'no change' there has been -- Speed Chess 'deciding' 'Classical' matches -- Speed Chess qualifiers.... etc. etc. ... but Anand's point was -- inflation = more Chess Players and Better Chess Players than ever before. Simple. Accurate!
So... Have the qualifications for becoming a Grandmaster also changed? -- I would say 'No. But The Road to the title has.' (It has become faster, and more crowded.)
(I highly recommend the video in the article below -- I never really found Anand interesting to listen to -- he always seemed 'detached' -- in this interview he was so 'Human', very 'engaging'! I was 'pulled in' immediately and was fascinated with his every word!)
Have the qualifications for becoming a Grandmaster also changed?
Here are the requirements:
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B01Regulations2017
Jun 6, 2021
0
#13
BRYANT43 wrote:
You can't be a Grandmaster and not know how to mate with a Bishop and Knight, right??
Former Women's World Champion GM Anna Ushinina fails to mate with Bishop and Knight.
There isn't a big GM exam, where you have to answer multiple choice tests and write about chess history. It is enough to be able to beat other GMs...
Jun 6, 2021
0
#15
llama47 wrote:
I don't know how you reached that conclusion from what I said... but IIRC you're old, so you're probably too senile to make a cogent point.
I resemble that remark! 
Jun 7, 2021
0
#16
blueemu wrote:
llama47 wrote:
I don't know how you reached that conclusion from what I said... but IIRC you're old, so you're probably too senile to make a cogent point.
I resemble that remark!
It's a bit embarrassing to me that I make posts like that, but I get pretty frustrated with things sometimes (maybe that's obvious).
I'm doing better though. Spending less time here and finding other people and activities.
Jun 7, 2021
0
#17
MelvinGarvey wrote:
Any alteration in the award of titles in chess, sets the embarrasing question of what to do with former titled players who never have met the new requirements? (assuming they'd upper the standarts).
Titles are rewarded for life. If you earn a title, even if you get worse at chess to the point where you are no longer as strong as your title, you keep the title.
You can't be a Grandmaster and not know how to mate with a Bishop and Knight, right??
I'm thinking there's a certification...or some set of achievements to hit - that doesn't seem to be the case. Just finished a video showing this example. I don't know, maybe it was the pressure - which resulted in an inability to 'piece' things together.
But even still, all things considered, it's a bad look. I can only imagine how other Grandmasters might feel after seeing a poor showing of another - maybe a little bit of pity... with a dash of spite.
They say chess has changed over the years. Have the qualifications for becoming a Grandmaster also changed? Based on the 5 steps to become GM on this site it doesn't seem so. Would any high level players be willing to share their views on the possible reexamining of Grandmaster qualifications?