Should GMs who fall below 2500 lose their GM title?

Tell you what:

First YOU earn the GM title, then start a campaign to have it taken away from you if you ever fall below GM standards of performance.

THEN I'll take you seriously.

It's fascinating, to me, how some amateur players (who've likely never even attempted to earn a title themselves) feel justified in criticizing title regulations.

Where does such hubris come from?

Hubris comes from representatives who think they can dictate over the people and say they have a mandate. Yes, I will likely never get the IM or GM title. But to say that should muzzle the voice of the people has a lot of smelly fecal stuff attached to that hubris.

On the PGA tour (and likely almost every professional game or sport association) there is a code of conduct. There is a governing body that makes up rules about what the participants must abide by. To me it seems reasonable this question could be easily addressed by those affected. 

Other than the 1600 people in the world who are grandmasters, and the organization that governs them, it's really nobody elses business what they do with their titles. It's their title, they can decide what the limitations should or shouldn't be. 

I'm a weekend golfer. I don't get to decide what the qualifications are for the LPGA tour or Hall of Fame status. 

What does that have to do with the topic question? The organizers should be the last person to decide. As blueemu mentioned becoming a GM and then being taken seriously, there is some credence to this. It negatively affects other GMs who are performing better. And, what happens when you are 2500 and you play someone rated 2462? They beat you and you find out they once had 2563. That's not fine and you won't win a gold that way in a tournament. I doubt you have ben there before.

Your rating change should then be at least calculated based on 2500. Otherwise, how is that different than sandbagging?

They are NOT at GM level anymore, maybe there should be an asterisk next to GM. I think 2600 should be the minimum today. There are many IM's over 2500.

Fun fact: Vladimir Kramnik was still an IM all the way to about 2650.

FIDE does have a mandate. They're the governing body of professional chess. So it's not hubris for them to establish their own title regulations.

It is hubris for an untitled amateur to declare that FIDE should change their title regulations, based solely upon a personal opinion - especially an opinion that clearly comes from a place of inexperience.

FIDE does NOT have a mandate. They have a power dominance that was cracked a bit after Kirsan Ilyumzhinov lost his 23 year grip over chess professionals. This is similar to Sepp Blatter with FIFA. Kasparov definitely didn't vote for Kirsan. Karpov didn't vote for him when he ran for president in 2010. Nigel Short didn't support Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. 

Try to convince them FIDE had a mandate over them. If you are content with a mandate by the body, then you are neglecting the fans and players.

So, this is not just my opinion vs. someone in power. It is an echo of realistic thought that professionals are contending they should have. Specifically, women's chess has a lot to do with this. Giving someone the title WGM until they qualify for a GM title means they have to cross over that 2500 bridge someday. It makes sense to put people in these categories so they can be better matched in tournaments and not just disguise them with Swiss style tournaments.

If you wish to attack me (or the issue but it's being backed up with my status) on the basis of  not having a title then take a gander over here https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/thoughts-on-replacing-swiss-system-tournaments-with-mcmahon

These are titled players discussing the same thing. They don't want to play lower level players. 

That's another matter. Ask them about your proposal.

Ah yes, because so many people have the GM title these days... tell you what. If more than 15% of chessplayers worldwide somehowgain a GM title, I'll consider your point.

It has everything to do with the topic because it addresses who should answer the question. The average weekend chess player should not have any say in whether or not a grandmaster loses his title. Fellow grandmasters, and the governing bodies of chess, should decide that. 

If (and when) a grandmaster falls below any certain rating level then he could then be paired with other similarly rated grandmasters. That's probably the purpose of ratings, to compare one chess players ability against another. 

"The average weekend chess player should not have any say in whether or not a grandmaster loses his title. Fellow grandmasters, and the governing bodies of chess, should decide that."

Either you are for or against taking the COVID vaccine. Based on your reply, I will assume you are for it and would advise others to take it. Or, would you keep it hush hush because you are not an expert doctor? Or, are you an expert doctor and don't suggest non-doctors to encourage family members to get a shot or not?

I really don't understand how people think that because you are not academically achieved or skilled in an area you can't form an opinion and be educated in it. Regardless if people have a PhD understanding of something, they can still educate themselves in certain areas. For example, celebrities, movie stars, and athletes who get an illness often donate money to a group related to their illness. They also become educated in that area even though they are not experts.

Another example would be Bill Gates with AIDS and COVID. Just because he was a Microsoft giant doesn't mean he alone based on that should be a voice for whether or not something should be followed. In addition, we can say he is just being a mouthpiece because he can attract a wider audience. I would like to think that people in this category are doing it because they agree with what they are being told, and that it is not 100% greed. 

I don't need to be a GM, nor do you to discuss this. We could be talking about 800 vs 1800 and that when you are 1500 and fall below you shouldn't play in a tournament with 1600-2000 players. I can see how the trend is more open with online chess these days, but my understanding is that clubs used to be like this where you had to be 1700 (probably USCF) to participate. Otherwise, if you draw the higher rated player still loses rating points.

What I am getting at though is the quality of chess rankings hurt. What happens when someone who is 2500, gets to 2600 but then falls to 2445 and plays an IM who is going for their GM norms? Does that IM get one of their norms with "help" from a win against a player who could possibly be lower rated than them?

"If (and when) a grandmaster falls below any certain rating level then he could then be paired with other similarly rated grandmasters."

Now you are touching on the idea here. There should at least be some distinction between a GM performing at the GM level and a GM performing substandard. 

I'm neither for or against the covid vaccine. Those who want to take it shouldn't be prohibited. Those that don't want to take it, shouldn't be forced. It's not for me to decide what affects someone else. I'm not a doctor, so I don't really have any say in offering medical advice to someone I don't even know. Same with me being a casual chess player. I don't really have any say in what limitations should or shouldn't be placed on grandmasters. That's their business, not mine. 

It makes no difference if a GM is performing as well as he used to. All GMs go down in rating. All of them. From what I understand a GM title is just that, a title. It has nothing to do with someones eventual rating. If at one time a GM was rated 2600 but now he's 2100 there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe he pursued other interests, maybe he started losing his memory, doesn't matter. The title is for life. If or when he starts playing at a 2100 level instead of a 2600 level then he can be paired with other 2100s. Seems pretty simple to me. 

There already exists a distinction between a GM performing at GM level and a GM performing substandard. It's called rating. 

"There already exists a distinction between a GM performing at GM level and a GM performing substandard. It's called rating."

But we don't use that when we organize GM tournaments. At Sinquefield yesterday, number 2 in the world Caruana at 2800 played 2700 Svidler who briefly dipped below. Of course, it doesn't matter because he is a top GM in respect he isn't 2500-2700 on a constant basis.

"I don't really have any say in what limitations should or shouldn't be placed on grandmasters. That's their business, not mine."

Now look at what I replied with before. You are reading this as if someone is placing an order at McDonald's. I am pointing out a fact like I mentioned celebrities doing the same, echoing the experts. If you say E=MC squared does it mean anything less because you may not be a physics mathematician? If it is a truth, it is as true as if an expert said it. It doesn't become more true once the expert says it.

If Sinquefield is already pairing up top GMs then that alone should tell you it's not just an amateur saying this.

Noting people as amateurs and therefore should be discredited is not addressing what I am saying. I am not saying Sinquefield should behave the way he is, I am saying Sinquefield is behaving in this way already. Top GMs are apparently agreeing with this. Otherwise, they wouldn't be showing up to play.

Wasn't it Nakamura who years ago refused to play in the US Championship because other players weren't strong enough (before the Caruana and So days)?

You have an example now of a top GM acting in the way I am describing. I am just pointing out the same thing to be applied at the 2500 level. If you fall below, I think you should have to earn those points back before you get invited to "GM games".

If a surgeon makes huge mistakes in their profession, not only should their license be possibly revoked but little old us should know about the incidents so we can make an educated decision when either they get their license back, or if in the case their license is not revoked.  

Troll alert issued.

If you disagree with someone, best approach is not to look at your position but accuse them of being a troll. Then what?

If "we" don't use that when organizing GM tournaments then the answer is simple. Organize your own GM tournament and have whatever rules you like. If your idea is well received you will know your idea was good. If turnout is low maybe it wasn't such a good idea. Either way you will get a definitive answer to your question. Just make sure you tell all the GMs in attendance that you will be deciding if they lose their GM title. 

"We" will leave them and the FIDE out of the decision making progress. Good luck and let me know how that turns out. 

Should Al Pacino lose his Oscar just  because now he s*cks? Of course not.

That is your answer.

     Boxers who win the world championship are known as "champ" for life. Retired (US) presidents, senators, cabinet secretaries and the like are usually referred to by their former office. Oscar winners are known as Oscar winners even if their award came years in the past. Masters golf tournament winners are invited back year after year and still get to wear the green jacket. Nobel prize winners are still called Noble prize winners forever even when many others have later won the Nobel prize in their field. These are simply signs of respect for someone's remarkable achievement. The same goes for the GM title.

     (Incidentally, Pete Rose is NOT in the baseball Hall of Fame. He is banned from organized baseball for life because he bet on games he played in.)

The difference is that he is done with a movie. Chess players are not done with a game. They can continue playing it. It would be like acting again in the same movie and changing the script a bit. So, then you would assess that new version.