Is Shankland Finally Elite?

The USA could certainly use another 2700-player... congratulations to Samuel Shankland for being crowned United States Chess Champion! And atop of that, he crossed 2700, officially becoming a "super-GM". 

Anyway, here is a list of players I'm sure you know who are within ten rating points of Sam's. Comment whether you think the newly-minted 2700 player compares to those players!:

Arkadi Naidistch

Boris Gelfand

Pavel Eljanov

Dmitry Andreikin

Michael Adams

Vladimir Fedoseev

Vasilly Ivanchuk

Wang Hao

Welcome to the 2700-club, Mr. Shankland!

Congrats to Shankland! good to see him keep rising up! 

The majority of the players around his level are past their peak. 

Boris Gelfand: He is a strong positional player, although at this point I think Shankland can compete. The Gelfand who challenged for the world championship? Shankland's got a way to go.

Ivanchuk (I'm not spelling his first name): An extremely creative player, whose playing strength often fluctuates, enough that I can't make an accurate comparison.

Michael Adams: I think that Shankland should more or less hold is own against Adams. (maybe a match would go something like 5,5-4,5?)

Everyone else; The remainder of the names you've listed provide a wide arrangement of 2700 players. Whether Shankland can hold his own against them will be determined... by his performance in top tournaments.

I think it would be good for Shankland to be invited to 2700-level super-tournaments, as currently I am unsure of his strength/potential!

We're about to find out.  Shankland is participating in an 8 player RR in Danzhou, China beginning this Friday (7/27) and ending on 8/3.  The average rating of the participants is 2729 with all of them rated over 2700.  The field includes 4 "rising stars," Jan Duda, Wei Yi, Santosh Vidit and Vladimir Fedoseev. (all 4 are 23 years or younger). Bu Xiangzhi, Yu Yangyi and Le Quang Diem round out the field.

Undoubtedly, this is Sam's toughest challenge in his chess career. 

Your definition of Super Tournament only applies to 3 or 4 tournaments a year(at classical time controls).  Even Corus. Dortmund and Biel fail to meet your requirements.  No one has made the case that Shankland is one of the top dozen in the world, but his present rank of #25 puts him in the top 2% of all active GMs.  The question is, "Can he play to an even score in Danzhou and validate his current strength."  

It is impossible to have a rating of 2780+ unless you are regularly competing against players with equally high ratings.  Nakamura can have a sub-par tournament, but only lose a handful of points.

Undoubtebly? What about the us championship? 

The US championship only had 3 players above 2700 FIDE, this tournament is completely above 2700.

Oi mate I am Elite

Maybe elite at Kinging... 

Oi mate you are correct

In spite of having 3 of the top dozen players in the world, the rest of the field was rated below 2700.  The rating average was well below the 2729 of the Danzhou tournament.

Interestlingly, the concept of a "Super Tournament," is only a phenomenon of the past 40 years.  Outside of the FIDE Candidate tournaments, held every 3 years from 1948 - 1962, it wasn't until the late 70s where a tournament would have all participants rated in the top 10 - 15.   Take a look at Fischer's tournaments during his playing career -- Outside of Curacao 1962 (a candidates tournament), every other tournament he played in had a few sacrificial lambs.   Before Montreal 1979, the strongest tournament, every year, was usually the Soviet Championship.

But the top players were much stronger

Zurich '53 was a candidates' tournament, but yes, AVRO 1938 was incredibly strong from top to bottom, but that was an anomaly.  I think you mean London 1899, which had many top players of the time, but the wide spread from top to bottom indicates there was not uniform strength.  Maybe St Petersburg 1914 stands out, as well.

@DeirdreSkye One or two bad games is enough to get 7th apparently, this competition is rough. I wouldn't hold it against him, he certainly held his own.

Agreed!

I just looked at the game.  It doesn't make sense why Sam resigned there.

I think he's a little star struck. Certainly Sam isn't top seed, and we should respect the fact that an "average" finish for him will naturally be in the middle. But he's not in the middle! Shankland has been playing rather timidly all tournament. He's lost equal positions, he's drawn better ones. Sam is just not performing at his  actual level, and maybe it's because he has a little too much respect for the cast of characters that are now his colleagues (or - at least - will be if he doesn't fall off the top of the pyramid!)

Sams knight gets captured, whites bishop can defend both pawns, and the queening square is the same color as the bishop.  Thats a loss for Sam.

I know the OP is old, just wanted to say 2700 is elite, so sure, call him a superGM if you want.

But if we're comparing careers, he doesn't compare to players like Gelfand and Ivanchuk.

Ugh, devastating.

I always love it when pros screw up like this... makes me feel better about times I screw up.

I mean, I feel bad for Shankland, but just reminds us that we're all human.