in terms of America..where will Emory Tate

plus isn't Tate known for beating so many GM's

I believe the best GM Tate beat was GM Yudasin . 

this isn't just about tate

it is about this idea that we promote in the chess community

that their is this off-set of grandmasters, these "super GM' that we like to think are better than the average IM or regular player...yet they only play within their selective groups

Your idea is grounded in facts that are not. 

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?201510125682.2-12641216

"It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so." Josh Billings

ok think about this

we don't talk about who the greater mathematician is or the greatest physicist is in those fields..because how can you compare to say Gauss vs. Euler, they studied different fields and had different sort of styles

just lke in chess there are players with different styles

No.

You've already demonstrated that your ideas are grounded in the knowledge that isn't so. I'm not going down that path any further.

SuperGM is not a very specific word. And I'm sure if Tate played Fischer he might (in 10 games) 

1. Beat him once
2. Draw him thrice
3. Lose to him six times

TY NM Reb....for post #18 !....always makes me laff !!

Obviously you're not going to give in. Just hear him out.

You need to atleast listen. What he's saying is quite accurate.

Why talk about Emory Tate ? He's older than the hippy movement.

If we're gonna talk about anyone in the USA/Territories, then why aren't we talking about Conrad Holt (for male players) ?

Lol. Chess.com threads always make me laugh. Dat moment when club players think super GMs are mythological XD

I'd venture to say that a Super GM is just a promising GM who got a big break (w/ timely promotion & $) & was able to gain experience w/ the highest tier of players....just thinking outloud (gets me in trouble alot  ).

@Ghostess_Lola    I disagree that Super GMs are just GMs that got a big break, please elaborate why you think this, other than your "gut feeling".

@Lasker  There's a big difference between a super 2700+ GM and normal GMs. At such a high level, these super GMs dedicate their lives to competitive playing and go extremely deep into positions and understanding certain positions, even more so than GMs. I know a couple of GMs who have day jobs and other things to do, and they can't spend time going as deep as they would've like. They just have vastly higher amount of chess knowledge and understanding. I could bring up a highly theoretical book by Dvoretsky and I can assure you the high rated player would know more of the content.

its more hard work than innate talent...would you agree?

The perceptible difference will probably have something to do w/ their image and reputation too - which has nothing to do w/ their ability "at-the-present".

IOW's, your perception of their ability is your reality....and only yours.

CM Squishey....w/ some due respect, u need to ask game & sporting & artistic professionals to firstly be honest you, then have them tell you of their "break(s)". Why do you think they call it "breaking in" or "I broke in...." ?

You getting to the next level (from CM to IM) is gonna take alotta luck. You won't be doing it on skill alone. You need outside promotion & $. Someone to believe in u. And you need to build a fan base. And being a prodigy helps a whole bunch.

And BTW, whether ppl like it or not....I always go on gut feeling - first. I trust it and rely upon it. Those who don't ?....I strongly question their self-confidence. And whether you like it or not, you're subconsciously doing the exact same thing. 'Cuz your emotions are at the 4front. Your thought process moves upward from your <3 to your head.

And I'm not quite sure why some people see that as a detriment. I see this as one's power. And so, I think people need to play chess on emotion first and not try to fight it.

I provided a link that PROVES what he said is false. Don't tell me to listen with your ears plugged.

But, you gotta' have fans!

Tate's mastery isn't one that can be captured by limited systems devised by Arpad Elo. The preturnatural beauty of his chess is beyond human measurement. 

The first and only time I won Chessmaster 3000 at the Top Tournament level, when I checkmated it I screamed out w/ everything in me. The two other girls I was living w/ came running in wondering what the he!! happened ! I'll never forget that moment.

I was so intent & determined (it took me over a year) that when I did it ?....I instinctively lost it....and that was the best feeling I've ever had in chess. I was playing purely on borderlinecrossing emotion. It's hard for me to duplicate that, but when I start playing people over 1800, then it kinda kicks in. And that's when I almost always play my best........

And don't believe for a second when IM pfren says he had zero breaks on his way to IM. He's lying to you. Whether it was a game break norm, or another person taking an interest, or something. Ego can play tricks with your memory.