Should GMs who fall below 2500 lose their GM title?

"People just wanted to differentiate those who are at least borderline candidates for world champion so they invented this expression"

That's my point. We should invent a way to differentiate the slacker GMs from the real GMs. Otherwise, you will get people who just play to become a GM and then stop playing. They will write books and charge $100 for lessons just because they achieved something once.

So an old guy is not old, he is slacking at youth... ok. Anyway, you differentiate them by rating points, as I've previously stated. No need to differentiate them any further. 

As I've said teaching and writing is meaningless for their title. They are not necessarily teachers, some of them just want to play the game. Some of them will never write a book as well.

As for rates of those who actually teach, you can always check their FIDE profile and decide if you wish to pay their rates (if that is what worries you). I mean they can easily say they want 1 000$ per hour regardless of their title, it is your decision if you want to pay that or not. And one more thing - higher rating doesn't necessary mean a better teacher. There are people rated 2 000 who are better at teaching than 2 700 GM, it is a completely unrelated skill.

"You differentiate them with rating points, as I've previously stated. No need to differentiate them any further."

But that waters down the title "GM". We have WGM because we know they aren't at GM level. If you are Hou Yifan then GM can distinguish you from the different group of GMs which are significantly lower. 

Ok, I guess you are trolling. No need for me to repeat myself. Have a nice day.

GM is not even a remunerated title

It's a freaking TITLE

It's not like a job or something

I think you don't understand what being a chess master means, it's about honor and stuff. It's not like taking exams to get money or anything

I am not trolling, lumping everyone under the GM title seems like it waters down the meaning. It means that it is too general of a title. A GM title in 1900s meant something, but today it's like owning an iPhone. If you have the money you can get one. 

That's literally the point of the title. If you are good you get it.

What do you mean by honor and stuff? I don't think players commit harakiri if they can't make it to GM. 

You are trolling. I see.

No, I think talking about getting "honor and stuff" is trolling. I highly doubt Carlsen or anyone else notable did it for honor. They did it because of a desire to achieve something. What dishonor is there in not getting a GM title? What should IMs feel?

Well there's an international master in here who's nowhere near the strength of that title and has somehow earned it a long time ago and now is in here condescending to everybody so I say yes strip it from him

But that sounds like you are just being vindictive. Is he really under 2400? And I think that IM titles are different than GM titles. An IM can become a GM in 100 points, but a GM has a whopping potential currently to get 300 points. 

Rose wasn't banned for poor baseball performance. It was an ethics issue. GMs can lose their titles due to that cause, too.

We have one. It's called "rating".

only cheating can cause to lose your title i guess, i remember a gm used a phone in toilet then it was revealed that he was cheating, he lost his title if i recall correctly

https://www.chess.com/news/view/nigalidze-verdict-3-year-ban-gm-title-stripped-4875

#25

"It's not like a job or something"

Oh yes, it is.
The GM title gives invitations to tournaments
The GM title gives higher appearance fees
The GM title sells more books / videos
A GM can demand a higher coaching fee
A GM can demand a higher fee for a simul 
It is much like a PhD

no

Trolling? Probably. I wasn't aware of "everyone" lumped under the title of GM. I always thought it was a pretty rare achievement, about 1600 of them in the world. I have the money, I can't get a GM title. 

Nor would I want one, but that's beside the point. 

"Rose wasn't banned for poor baseball performance. It was an ethics issue. GMs can lose their titles due to that cause, too."

That wasn't the point. I was talking about someone having something unfavorable happen to them, and then they get a favorable thing later. In this case, a GM could get their title back.

"We have one. It's called "rating"."

Then use rating, not the title. We are using titles though currently.

"I wasn't aware of "everyone" lumped under the title of GM."

If you are 2500 you are a "GM".
If you are 2600 you are a "GM".
If you are 2700 you are a "GM".
And for Magnus (Caruana?), if you are 2800 you are a GM.

This is what I was talking about by "everyone". If you get 2500 and get your norms, then you would be included. So, it is also an all encompassing label for those who performs to a certain standard.

The question is, what happens when you fall below the standard?

****Now try reading these posts without finding one obscure interpretation that has absolutely no connection with the post you are replying to. If you can't address it head on, then it shows YOU are the one trolling, and it shows YOU are the one who can't provide a suitable rebuttal.****