I believe the standard for GM are the necessary norms AND a min 2500 ( fide ) rating , unless it has changed recently . A GM that got the title that way and later drops under 2500 doesnt bother me , it happens a lot . However , a player that never got a 2500 rating doesnt deserve it imo , just as one without the necessary norms doesnt . FIDE however does grant title s for certain results , in certain events . I played on a team in Portugal with an IM from Angola who had never achieved a 2400 rating and I dont think he got the norms either for his title . He was awarded the title for winning his National Championship ( Angolan ) and I think the field he was in was very weak . He was no stronger than me and in fact I played ahead of him on our team , I was board 1 and he was board 2 and in many meetings we had against each other I had a plus record against him . Apparently if you win a National Championship you get the IM title automatically and it matters not if you play a bunch of weak players or not . I have noted many small countries with titled players who have very low ratings given their title . Puerto Rico is another one I have noticed with this problem .
Has Fide lowered the requirements to become GM?
http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=KEN
Look at this list and note there is a FM ( #35 ) that has never even been over 1400 ! He was born in 2002 . How can that be justified/excused ? !
Such jokes as this makes a mockery of the FM title .
I believe the standard for GM are the necessary norms AND a min 2500 ( fide ) rating , unless it has changed recently . A GM that got the title that way and later drops under 2500 doesnt bother me , it happens a lot . However , a player that never got a 2500 rating doesnt deserve it imo , just as one without the necessary norms doesnt . FIDE however does grant title s for certain results , in certain events . I played on a team in Portugal with an IM from Angola who had never achieved a 2400 rating and I dont think he got the norms either for his title . He was awarded the title for winning his National Championship ( Angolan ) and I think the field he was in was very weak . He was no stronger than me and in fact I played ahead of him on our team , I was board 1 and he was board 2 and in many meetings we had against each other I had a plus record against him . Apparently if you win a National Championship you get the IM title automatically and it matters not if you play a bunch of weak players or not . I have noted many small countries with titled players who have very low ratings given their title . Puerto Rico is another one I have noticed with this problem .
Interesting that FIDE has introduced this new rule, as it says clearly in the article: 'under the new FIDE rule that awards the GM title directly to the winners of the continental chess championships.' So winner of the European championship or Asian would also automatically become a GM. I think there is a fine line between diluting the title and using it to create more interest in media for Chess, then having new grandmasters is a good thing...
FIDE gives out affirmative action type titles , which cheapens the titles imo and certainly isnt fair to those who qualify for the title the " hard/correct" way .
Exactly, you get it. Especially these days when even 2600 GMs are no longer considered as "strong" when the bar keeps on stretching higher and higher. So where would a 2400 "GM" who was awarded the title fit in? I know many IMs that are just as strong or even much stronger than that, and they would love to get the title. It is clearly not fair.